__________________ ____________________  

Crime and Punishment


by Fyodor Dostoevsky
In the novel "Crime and Punishment", by Fyodor Dostoevsky,
suffering is an integral part of every character's role.
However, the message that Dostoevsky wants to present with
the main character, Raskolnikov, is not one of the
Christian idea of salvation through suffering. Rather, it
appears to me, as if the author never lets his main
character suffer mentally throughout the novel, in relation
to the crime. His only pain seems to be physical sicknes.
Raskolnikov commits a premeditated murder in a state of
delirium. He ends up committing a second murder, which he
never ever wanted to be responsible for. He kills Lizaveta,
an exceedingly innocent person. But does the author ever
remind us of the murder at any time in the novel again? Not
in the physical sense of the crime itself. The reader
doesn't hear about how heavily the murders are weighing on
his heart, or how he is tormented by visions of the crime.
He doesn't feel the least bit guilty about having committed
the crime, only his pride's hurt. He doesn't mention the
idea of the pain that might arise from recurrent visions of
the crime. Raskolnikov never again recalls the massive
amounts of blood everywhere, the look on Lizaveta's face
when he brings down the axe on her head. These things
clearly show that the crime isn't what might cause him
suffering, or pain, it is something else.
After Raskolnikov is sent off to Siberia, he doesn't feel
remorseful. His feelings haven't changed about his crime. 
He only feels bad at not being able to live up to his own
ideas of greatness. He grows depressed only when he learns
of his mother's death. Raskolnikov still hasn't found any
reason to feel remorse for his crimes. He doesn't even mind
his restricted life in Siberia because it's more
comfortable than his home in St. Petersburg. He doesn't
view Siberia as suffering, but he does view it as
punishment, because he would rather not have to go through
seven years in his prison cell.
His theory of the extraordinary, and the ordinary is
something he has to follow and adhere to . His necessity to
suffer is a part of his necessity to fulfill his unknown
criteria to be extraordinary. His suffering, if any, is
purely superficial. The idea of suffering has to be
heartfelt and well-specified. Raskolnikov's suffering is
never spoken about, mainly because there is none. He even
views his turning himself in as a blunder, because he
couldn't take the heat. It is obvious that Raskolnikov
never seems to be in a pit of despair from all the
suffering he has to face. 
One might argue that Raskolnikov's illnesses arise from his
guilt and remorse for the crimes, but that doesn't appear
possible since the character never cites the murder for his
sickness. Even though Raskolnikov fell sick immediately
after committing the murder, it most likely was not the
cause. How could he be struck by guilt five seconds after
committing the murder when he hasn't even had a chance to
see what events have just occurred? There is not a single
instance when Raskolnikov, or the author for that matter,
ever cite that the dramatic effect of the murders on
Raskolnikov's conscience is the cause of his terrible
NOTHING in the novel would even imply that he feels remorse
about committing the murders. It is just a silly idea that
has been implanted in people's minds and the seed has
spread too rapidly, without analyzing it. It is incredibly
obvious that all the so-called pain and suffering that
Raskolnikov feels is untrue, silly, and backed by no
support. It would be incredulously moronic to attempt to
view it from another point of understanding. People are
entitled to their own opinions but one and one should not
be influenced by the beliefs of the majority. Acceptance
of a theory without analysis is not scientific. 



Quotes: Search by Author