Crime and Punishment

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to read what is possibly the most perfect piece of literature to ever exist. I don’t think I’ll ever read another book again which took me through so many highs and lows as Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. The author’s manic portrayal of guilt and the skewed rationality used by our protagonist Raskolnikov in justifying his crime is shocking, to say the least. 

The story revolves around, as you might assume crime and punishment. Raskolnikov our protagonist - murders his pawnbroker one sweltering day and the rest of the book is a dive into the guilt, paranoia, and fear experienced by the character before finally reaching the punishment.

 When I first started reading the book, I’ll admit I found it unbearably slow. I dragged myself through the first hundred pages and found myself hooked. I think what makes this book so very stunning, beyond Dostoevsky’s exquisite writing is how real the paranoia felt by the character is portrayed. Halfway through the book, I was so engrossed I was convinced that I was Raskolnikov and had committed a crime, I found myself anxious and on edge. This may seem delusional but exists as an example to show how captivating the book is. 

The idea of social alienation is a big theme, and I found myself making slight similarities to Camus’s The stranger. Raskolnikov doesn’t exactly fit into society and this seems to stem more so from his belief that he is superior to anything else. The character holds the belief that certain individuals are extraordinary and should be held to higher standards than obedient ordinary men. They should not be held accountable with mentions of morality and legality, they are above and punishment should be waived. 

Raskolnikov also recognizes the wrongness associated with murder but justifies it by referring to himself as extraordinary and thinking of himself as creating a new ‘good’ which outweighs the act of murder. He believes society will be much better off without the pawnbroker - who is described as old and abusive. Her removal and Raskolnikov's believed betterment of society allows him to condone the crime. He likens himself to Napoleon, Solon, and Lycurgus and argues that if they were judged on the same level as 'ordinary' men they would all be locked away as criminals. As the book progresses and Raskolnikov is faced to confront how banal and ordinary his life is and perhaps reaching the conclusion that he isn’t the ‘extraordinary’ man he had previously hoped we see a shift in the character. This only happens toward the end of the book. 

I think what makes it interesting is that this ideology isn’t flawed, the steps that Raskolnikov took to achieve his conclusion all seem relatively sound. Simply calling him crazy or paranoid is extremely reductive as the book serves as a reminder of how fickle logic is and how we can twist ourselves into the most dreadful scenarios by simply rationalizing. I think the book calls for an openness to other ideas and views which contrast your views and understanding them.