John Heisel
Dangerous Texts
November 16, 2001
Crime and Moral Resurrection in Crime and Punishment
In the Russian literary canon, Crime and Punishment does little new thematically:
the idea of the writer as a prophet, as someone who is instructed by God to speak the
truth from the hills is just as prevalent as in any other serious Russian literature.
However, what is special about Crime and Punishment is the masterful way in which
Dostoyevsky discloses his prophecy.
Crime and Punishment is structured in such a way that could perhaps fool the
reader into thinking that Dostoyevsky is not acting as a prophet, that he too is questioning
the values of right and wrong. After all, the novel is set up almost as if Dostoyevsky was
searching for truth himself. This, however, is not the case. Dostoyevsky knows exactly
where his quest will take him; he just isn’t entirely sure how to get there at the outset of
the book.
Early on, Dostoyevsky introduces a wide cast of characters. So many characters
are introduced in the first chapters that it may seem impossible that they are all important.
And yet each and every character has a purpose that he or she must serve before leaving
the pages. As there are two stories in the book, that of Raskolnikov’s crime and that of
his subsequent quest for redemption, Dostoyevsky introduces characters that are unique
to each side of the story as well as characters that are able to play roles in both parts.
Although many of the other characters appear in both parts of the book, it cannot be said
that they are important to both parts. In fact, I believe that it is only Raskolnikov who is
important to both parts of the book.
In the crime section of the book, while Raskolnikov is not the only character
being developed, he is clearly the most important character in the book, the one through
which Dostoyevsky’s prophetic words will pass. All of the other characters introduced in
the first part of the book are merely tangentially related to Raskolnikov. As we move into
the second half of the book Sonya also takes a major role. Although a prostitute, she is to
be viewed as the center of morality in this book. She has sacrificed her body out of love
to save her family. For this, Raskolnikov feels drawn to her. Through her moral purity
and naïve religious convictions, she is able to unwittingly help Raskolnikov sketch out a
plan for his own redemption.
At the same time, other characters that were tangential in the first half of the book
come more into focus. The primary characters I would like to focus on are Porfiry
Petrovich and Svidrigailov, although many other characters also play important roles on
the road to Raskolnikov’s redemption, particularly his mother and sister. Porfiry
Petrovich’s role is primarily as a literary device, I believe. Once the story has moved
beyond the confines of Raskolnikov’s thoughts, Dostoyevsky introduces Porfiry
Petrovich so that the psychological thriller portion of Crime and Punishment can
continue.
Svidrigailov also plays a large role in this part of the book. It has been suggested
that Dostoyevsky intended for Svidrigailov to be Raskolnikov’s doppelganger, and that is
quite possibly true. Svidrigailov plays the role of Raskolnikov’s theoretical “great man” he never questions whether or not he is in the right, he just knows he is. And through
Svidrigailov we see the utter loneliness and unhappiness being truly great creates in a
person. The characters of Sonya, Raskolnikov, and Svidrigailov are so deeply intertwined
(with Sonya and Svidrigailov even sharing parts of the same flat) specifically so that
Dostoyevsky can show character contrasts. Raskolnikov is in a moral gray area: he has
done what he thought was right only to have his act backfire on him and send him into a
downward spiral of psychological torture. Sonya represents the moral purity that
Raskolnikov thought would be his once he carried out his murderous act. Svidrigailov
plays opposite Sonya; he is whom Raskolnikov would have become if Raskolnikov had
truly been an extraordinary man. In fact, in one of the novel’s denouement scenes,
Svidrigailov eavesdrops as Raskolnikov explains to Sonya that it was he that murdered in
an attempt to become extraordinary. This seems to enact a change in Svidrigailov’s
behavior: he seems to give of himself freely and ultimately ends up killing himself.
Perhaps the realization that someone would willingly want to become extraordinary like
him so much that he needed to commit suicide to deter any potential followers.
Ultimately, Dostoyevsky manages to weave together the twin stories of crime and
of moral redemption, but the two stories, while directly related, are only tangentially
connected. It’s almost as if Dostoyevsky didn’t know exactly where he wanted to go with
the novel, aside from having a crime and a quest for moral redemption, so he just set up
numerous characters to play roles on both sides. I think that either half of this enormous
tome could be read separately with little negative effect on the reader. And,
unfortunately, that is probably not what Dostoyevsky intended.