Question

[Jennifer]

I read Crime and Punishment in high school. I was wondering what anyone thinks about this. Do you think that Raskolnikov would have felt so guilty if he wouldn't have killed the old woman's sister? I think that one of the main reasons that he felt so guilty was because she was a good person and he didn't think she deserved to die. Any thoughts?

[Norman]

Good question. Given his rather sensitive (bordering on paranoic) nature, I think good old Raskolnikov would have eventually felt guilty even if he had only killed the wicked old pawnbroker. Note that I say 'eventually' - he may have gone a few years rather than months before he felt compelled to confess, but in the end he would have turned himself in.

The killing of the sister I interpret more as a message to the reader than anything else. The message is that once you commit yourself to an evil (yet somewhat justifiable) act, you may unwittingly place yourself in a position where you have to commit another evil (and totally unjustifiable) act. He may have wanted to discourage any wanna-be Raskolnikov's who felt they had good reason to assassinate or murder a 'bad' person in their society.

Haven't you ever considered how much better society might be if certain individuals were 'knocked off'? Raskolnikov's experience suggests that what we may consider a 'noble' or moral act, even when carried out successfully and with total impunity, may prove to be an unbearable burden on our soul.

[Tyler]

I think he would have felt the same remorse because Sonia got through to him on behalf of all people.

To me, the fact that Lizaveta walked in and got killed was intended by the author to throw light on the question of Aliona's worth as a human being. It introduces the question of whether there can be "innocent" and "guilty" victims, a question Raskhalnikov thought he had answered.

Lizaveta's murder shows Raskhanikov that his justification for killing Aliona was ad hoc and self-serving. Lizaveta's murder indirectly raises the question, "Well, wasn't Aliona a human being, too?"

The novel's essential point is the value of human beings simply because they are human, not because they've proved their worth to another person.

[Norman]

Relyt - Interesting comment. However, Dostoyevsky himself may have contradicted this interpretation of C & P's message when he wrote in favor of capital punishment. (I'll check the source and get back to you on this...)

[Tyler]

Hi Norman -- Yes, Dostoyevsky was a conservative in his later years, and it wouldn't surprise me if he did write in favor of capital punishment. The idea that the state should never execute a citizen is a recent and controversial phenomenon, far less established then than now.

On the other hand, Dostoyevsky adopted an outlook of religious existentialism in his works. The element of self-judgment you mentioned in your last sentence is an aspect of such a worldview. And besides Raskolnikov's own internal conflict, the author keeps focusing attention onto the uniqueness of each character. Though a wicked pawnbroker, the book asks who other than God may pass judgment on the worth of this woman's life. And though a murderer, the author spares Raskolnikov to make the same point.

Dostoyevsky in person was a cruel and contradictory man. However he himself felt about the death penalty, the stance he adopted in C&P suggests that each person has some irreducible value that no other man may touch. Perhaps he was "trying on" this new concept in the novel, despite his conservativism. As you point out, there can be no doubt he's a fascinating study in his own right.

[Alina]

I'm not sure that Raskolnikov did feel particularly guilty about either murder, for all that he confessed.

Do you remember what Raskolnikov thinks in his despair as he is serving out his sentence?

"And if only fate would have sent him repentance—burning repentance that would have torn his heart and robbed him of sleep [...]But he did not repent of his crime.[...]
“Why does my action strike them as so horrible?” he said to himself. “Is it because it was a crime? What is meant by crime? My conscience is at rest."

It is only when he realizes that he loves Sonia that he thinks “Can her convictions not be mine? Her feelings, her inspirations at least.…”

Why, then, did Raskolnikov confess? Dostoyevsky suggests that it was because "he had perhaps been dimly conscious of the fundamental falsity in himself and his convictions."

I think that he had simply miscalculated; because great men were, to him, above the law, he thought that putting himself above the law would make him a great man. It didn't - and he could only get out of the philosophical mess he had landed himself in by either confession or suicide.

Incidentally, I doubt that even Hollywood could have come up with so contrived a happy end!

[Norman]

Hi Relyt and Alina,

Great books definitely provoke interesting discussions!

It has been a while since I read the book (and I don't have a copy close at hand); nevertheless, I recall a strong impression of Raskolnikov being tormented by subconscious guilt no matter how often he consciously tried to justify his act. Thus I would identify his problem as more of a pyschological dilemma than a "philosophical mess." Perhaps it is best to say it is both. Either way his character is torn, and Dostoyevsky drew me into his tormented world from the opening chapter.

I agree that the ending seemed horribly contrived and a letdown from the earlier parts of the book. I recall the much better ending of Notes from the Underground, and can only wish Dostoyevsky had ended C & P as effectively.

Both of your comments above have prompted memories of the character of Svidrigailov (I forget the exact spelling). While loathsome in many ways, his character also evokes sympathy when we realize the extent of his own self-hatred. He similarly found himself tormented by his actions, but lacking a 'Sonya' to confess to, chose suicide as a way out.

Now I feel I have to re-read the entire novel....

[[deleted user]]

yah me too
i remember the impression that his environment had so dehumanized him that he wanted to feel guilt and remorse, did feel guilt and remorse but was so stripped of his humanity by the society around him that he couldn't quite

he'd been murdered himself in a way and so not exactly "guilty" of his crimes