Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoevsky
Final Inquiry Questions
First level of inquiry:
What is the book’s most important
event? When does the character change?
Raskolnikov does not change until the
last pages of the novel, during his early time in Siberia, when he recognizes
Sonya’s loyalty to him and that he can finally be close to her and love her.
What a very strange moment it is
because he was separated from society and people, including friends who tried
to help him and his own mother and sister who loved him unconditionally. He is usually cold and annoyed by
everyone and content to be alienated from the world.
After he begins his prison
sentence, and he breaks down, there seems to be a regeneration of his soul, which interestingly takes place around Easter: he
realizes his need for God, for Sonia, and for people in general.
Second level of inquiry:
What is the author trying to convince
you of?
Dostoevsky is trying to convince us
that everyone is a criminal in some way, although some are crimes because they
are illegal and some are sins against God; but only some are successful and
some are not because some get away with it and others succumb to their guilt
and confess.
Who else is a criminal? Aliona, who
cheated people and abused her sister, Lizaveta; Marmeladov, who neglected his
family; Luzhin, who manipulated and took advantage of Dunya; Svidrigailov, who
destroyed his wife and exploited children; Or Sonya, who practiced
prostitution?
Who is not a criminal or
sinner in some way? The only difference
is that Raskolnikov gave in to his guilt.
He was weak, he says, and could not commit suicide; instead he confessed
in order to live out the consequence and return to society.
What does the central character
want? What is standing in his way? What strategy does he pursue in
order to overcome this block?
On the one hand it seems
that Raskolnikov is seeking to test his theory that some men are superior to
others and above the law of man; and maybe he is, too. Other men are “made of bronze” because they
go on to become great and powerful military generals and leaders in which
everything is permitted, even crime and sin.
After he commits the
murders and robbery, he learns that he is not made of bronze, but of flesh, and
his guilty conscience destroys him.
He must confess his
crime, first to Sonia, then to his sister, and almost publically, but finally
to the police. He must live out his
punishment and suffer the consequences.
So in this case it seems
that there is something more that Raskolnikov wants. And I think it could be his desire to be
reunited with society; to be accepted again by people; to be worthy to be loved
by others; and to be reconciled to God. Of
course, once he begins his sentence, he finally breaks down, enabling him to
open up to Sonia, the other prisoners, and to a relationship with God.
Third Level of Inquiry:
Is there an argument in this
book? What is the idea? Do you agree? Is the book true?
This question is going to be the
death of me. For the last three days I
have sat dumbfounded looking at it. So I
decided to read the Introduction, the section I put off reading because it was
not written by the author, and I was able to pull out one idea and consider it
an argument: “Human nature – not the material world or…enlightened
self-interest – determines behavior.”
Dostoevsky rejected the idea that one’s environment determined his
behavior.
For example, Razumikhin was in the
same position as Raskolnikov: a poverty-stricken student, living in abysmal
conditions, and, yet, he was encouraging, empathetic, and resourceful. He was hopeful and happy about the future. Still able to maintain a moral compass,
Razumikhin is even offended to hear of Raskolnikov’s article on his theory that
some can commit murder and get away with it since they are above the law.
Another example was Sonia who was
just as impoverished and hopeless and living as a prostitute, but she was also
encouraging, loyal, thoughtful, and good-hearted toward others. At one point, Raskolnikov tells Sonia that
she is going to drive herself to suicide under such conditions, but I think she
believes she is sacrificing herself for her family; she lives for others. (It’s still not godly behavior, of
course.)
One other example is Raskolnikov’s
sister, Dunya, who is also living in poverty, yet she is able to maintain a
moral foundation and even present herself honorably.
But other characters, such as Luzhin
and Svidrigailov, who seem financially well-off or better than the rest of
society, didn’t have a moral leg to stand on.
Luzhin, who could manipulate and use others, ended up being rejected by
Dunya. And Svidrigailov did not have a
moral foundation and was able to go either way looking like a really generous
person while committing perverse acts.
He is referred to as “a parody of the concept of the “natural man”.” His life is valueless, and he commits
suicide.
Hence, if Dostoevsky is arguing
that man’s behavior is a result of his sinful nature, then I wholeheartedly
agree. From a Christian worldview, man
is born in sin and must be taught from his youth to control himself from his
impulses to sin; some get it, and some don’t.
But to blame one’s bad behavior on his environment does not explain why
there are people in poverty with less opportunity or education who are godly,
God-fearing, honorable, hopeful, and law-abiding citizens. It also does not explain why the elite, who are wealthy, worldly, and experienced, can also be morally corrupt.
I like the way to dissect and analyze your books. This is really thought provoking, especially as you said you pondered one of your questions for days before developing an answer!
ReplyDelete