#2 Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

This is definitely the largest book I have every read, other than  The Once and Future King (which is technically four books put together, so that doesn’t really count. With its length, comes times where the book gets a little long, but Dostoyevsky always seems to keep it interesting. I remember one scene that last like ten or so pages which describes the main character, Raskolnikov, waking up in the morning, but still was able to hold my attention and interest.

In cases of modern books, TV, and movies, there seems to be an emphasis on the crime and how it was committed. Take, for example, the popular cop shows like NCIS, Law and Order, and Criminal Minds which are all about the details of the crime and catching the criminal. The murder in this book takes place on page 75 out of 560. The focus on this book is the punishment of Raskolnikov: both internally and externally. I would say the main theme of the novel is “redemption can only be achieved through suffering”, and boy oh boy is there suffering in the book. Raskolnikov is tortured by his own mind as he becomes paranoid and insane while trying to evade detection from the investigators. The people around him see his erratic behavior and assume it is due to sickness, but he drives himself to a near physical death due to the stress he experiences from the murder.

I think the best way to describe why he murdered the pawnbroker and her sister was “why not”. Now, don’t think of this as in the sense that he is psychopathic or last remorse or feeling-he experiences all those things in great effect- but rather as in that Raskolnikov though it made the most sense logically to kill the people. It is later revealed that, months prior to the murders, he wrote an article describing how certain people are born above others in the sense that they are the only ones who have the willpower to do what has to be done. The main example that he gives is Napoleon, saying that the wrongs that he committed as ruler should be brushed away since he accomplished so much. Napoleon had the right to do what he did because he was an “extraordinary man”. With this, I think what causes Raskolnikov to murder the people that he did was do to with his struggle to prove to himself that he was one of these extraordinary men. In the end, I think he comes to realize that he is not one of these people, and thus is the start of his redemption, for he had suffered all that he could. This part of the book is so fascinating to me, because the fits of hysteria and paranoia that come with his suffering are so interesting to read. There is a switch that occurs between him thinking that he had executed the perfect murder and a feeling that everyone knows that he did it and is messing with him. This is what drives him to the brink of insanity.

Despite Raskolnikov being a literal axe-murderer, he remained throughout the book, at least to me, as a good person. I saw the mental and physical strife that he went through and I felt bad for him. It was this conflict in his mind that made him feel the need to kill, and it was this conflict that brought him to his downfall. Something that I find very interesting with this book, and many other non English originals, is that the names are symbolic of the characters. For example, the “Raskol” part in Raskolnikov means ‘split’ or ‘schism’ in Russian, and there is definitely a schism in his mind which causes his suffering. The same goes for many others in the book, and I find this to be a cool little feature that I originally didn’t know. Anyways, I think the reason I saw him as such a good person is due to the insight you get on him and the other characters due to the book being in the third person omniscient. You see inside of his mind and see the true reason why he does things. For example, there is a common reoccurrence of him genuinely helping other in dire need, but immediately regretting it as if a switch flicked. For example, he sees a drunken woman on the street being pursued by a man, and he steps in and calls an officer over to ensure her safety. For a man that had split open the skulls of two people only twenty pages prior, doing this heroic act seems out of character, but it is not. It is the other side of his conflicted mind peeking out of the shadows. This is also seen again when his friend dies from being run over by a horse, and he offers the wife of the deceased the only money that he has at the time to cover the funeral cost. He did such a great thing to both parties, yet he still regrets his decisions because of the schism present in his mind.

The final reason I liked this book was because of the epilogue. The epilogue is typically not well received (only the first paragraph or so) from what I have seen, but I think it fits well with the story. As I have mentioned on here in a post prior, it is the typical happy ending filled with hope and love and a bright future ahead. I also mentioned that I tend to dislike these types of endings because they are overdone, but I think this one fits perfectly and I would not want it to end any other way. The main theme is achieving redemption through suffering, and it would not make sense to have an ending where the redemption is not mentioned. It fits with the story that Raskolnikov is able to find peace and love in his life. He comes to this realization in prison, where he is fine with staying as he has already experienced his true punishment: the suffering during the few weeks after the murders. He has come to terms with himself and has excepted reality.

The book ends with the line:

“But here a new story begins: the story of a man’s gradual renewal and gradual rebirth, of his gradual crossing from one world to another, of his acquaintance with a new, as yet unknown reality. That could be a subject for another tale-our present one has ended.”

A perfect end to a perfect book.

 

The final post will be about my favorite novel of all time: Kokoro by Natsume Soseki.