Note: This article contains spoilers. 

“Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth.”

                   – Fyodor Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment”

Anyone who intently reads Dostoevsky’s novels will agree that the experience of reading them is the most enjoyable slog imaginable. Not only are his books often a commitment of two weeks or more, they are teeming with significance at almost every level. 

Crime and Punishment (C&P), in particular, is one of Dostoevsky’s finest novels. It chronicles the story of Raskolnikov, the protagonist, who murders a pawnbroker and her sister in cold blood and the aftermath of these abhorrent actions. 

There are so many avenues of thought that one can explore when reading C&P that I am reluctant to offer my perspective as the “correct” one. As I always do in these reviews, I want to narrow in on what readers can take away from this book and apply it to their own life.  

The themes prevalent in C&P are the tension between faith and reason, the consequences of extended thought as opposed to direct action, the path to happiness, and, above all, the power of love. 

It starts with Raskolnikov, one of the most notorious characters in all of literature. The book opens with Raskolnikov living almost a double life. He is highly intelligent yet has nothing to show for himself. He is entrenched in squalor and lives in mere rags. Then, the idea of murdering the pawnbroker appears in his head–something Raskolnikov believes would render positive results for himself and the rest of humanity. But Raskolnikov is also terrified that he possesses the capacity to generate such an idea because he knows how terrible the act of murder is. However, Raskolnikov follows through with the murder anyway, and after the murder takes place, we see the true development of the themes listed above. 

And though one could find passages of interest and enlightenment on every page of this novel, there is one particular section that I think illuminates the intellectual strength of the whole book. Raskolnikov tortures himself with panic and superstition after the murders, and when speaking with Sonya, who represents the strength of love and morality in the face of suffering, he explains the motivation behind his murderous deed:

“I had to endure all the agony of that battle of ideas, Sonya, and I longed to throw it off: I wanted to murder without casuistry, to murder for my own sake, for myself alone…And it was not the money I wanted Soya, when I did it. It was not so much the money I wanted, but something else..I know it all now…Understand me! Perhaps I should never have committed a murder again. I wanted to find out something else…I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right…”

“To kill? Have the right to kill?” Sonya clasped her hands…

“I murdered myself, not her!”

I left out certain parts of the passage for the sake of maintaining a normal length of this article, but any observant reader can detect the various working parts. Dostoevsky lived in a time when reason and ideas of rationality were emerging and beginning to take an immense hold on the world. This concerned him greatly, especially in the realm of morality, and we see his concern echoed through the actions and musings of Raskolnikov. 

Raskolnikov appears to have come to the conclusion that murdering the woman would maximize overall good and that he could contribute far more to society with her money than the old pawnbroker who hoards her wealth with no obvious plan to help anyone but herself (and so he had the “right” to kill her.) If you haven’t already identified it, Dostoevsky is offering a critique of utilitarianism, a moral philosophy according to rational calculation that attempts to maximize the most good for the greatest number of people.

Through his narrative, Dostoevsky dispels Raskolnikov’s emphasis on maximizing the most good and instead directs us to think about principle. In contrast to the harshness of Raskolnikov, Sonya represents a life of morality even though she lives in the most destitute circumstances imaginable. She pushes back on his point that he has any “right” to kill and that it is a slippery slope when one begins justifying murder. She has a connection to something beyond herself (religion), and while I question Dostoevsky’s view surrounding religion, it is easy to understand the point he is making. 

In response to Sonya, Raskolnikov claims that he murdered himself and not her, once again re-emphasizing his selfishness. But there is also a deeper point about action that Dostoevsky wants us to see. Whatever acts you commit, the consequences will stick with you, even if you can rationalize it. Raskolnikov wanted to be Napoleon, yet soon understood what such an endeavor involved; only, it was too late. He was left to pick up the pieces of his own action. 

So, in part, Raskolnikov did murder himself. He sacrificed his sanity for the fulfillment of some rational ideal. The true essence of humanity lies in being able to retain a sense of moral goodness, of love and awareness that does not elevate yourself above others for “rational” reasons. Instead of attempting to better his life, Raskolnikov tries to shoehorn himself into history, thereby justifying any wrongdoing on his part (i.e., murder). He tortured himself with contemplation and, as a result, acted as a conqueror would. 

For Dostoevsky, what is rational might not always be the best course of action. Humans act in ways that are obscure and often irrational, and the results of these actions can seemingly work against our most important interests. Consequently, we are faced with the problem of what it is to be a person and someone who engages meaningfully in society: questions that have permeated across time, from the ancients to the present. Dostoevsky’s overall point is to say that the methods of reason and rationality have not suspended us from investigating principles of morality and love. 

As I prefaced above, compiling every intricate detail of C&P into one review is simply impossible. Literature is up to interpretation and I hope that you get lost in reading this novel. It is a book about psychology, morality, and much much more. It will challenge everything you know about yourself and the rest of humanity. At times, you will relate to Raskolnikov, and at other points, you will despise him. You will find yourself in him (though I hope none of you have any inclination toward murder) and the struggles he goes through. Beyond Raskolnikov, there are highly interesting characters and sup-plots that offer plenty of food for thought on their own. It is truly a tour-de-force of artistic expression.

Buy it and read it. 

Rating: 9/10