“What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?”

Crime and Punishment is Dostoevsky’s criticism of naive rationalism, utilitarianism, and armchair philosophizing. For such a boring topic, this is a surprisingly fun read. Adhering to his own criticism, Dostoevsky does not take to prophesying and making grand philosophical arguments about the pros and cons of communism but instead weaves an interesting and entertaining narrative of what might happen if one were to take rationalism to its extreme. Like Orwell, Dostoevsky also sees communism, and more broadly utilitarianism, ultimately leading to “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. However, unlike Orwell Dostoevsky sees this happening on an individual rather than societal level.

This is a disturbing book on many levels. On the plot level, we have Raskolnikov planning, executing, and rationalizing a murder. In the background, Dostoevsky creates an unbearably bleak and miserable St. Petersburg which makes the city the biggest villain of the story. On the level of characters, he creates these vile creatures whose baseness is a deep, inseparable part of their existence. Then there is the society and the Russian bureaucracy which is hell-bent on doublespeak and whose sole purpose is crushing its denizens and making their lives unbearable. And at the deepest level is the philosophy. Dostoevsky plays the devil’s advocate and through Raskolnikov debates the value of one human life against many.

He almost never presents a one-sided story. Each character is juxtaposed with their extreme opposite. A philosopher to a practical person, a criminal to a detective, an atheist to a Christian. The entire book is a tug of war between these opposing factions that split the protagonist’s soul and drive him to insanity while inflicting unbearable pain upon him and those around him.

Not for one moment is there any question about the immorality of the crime and the inevitability of the consequences. The genius of Dostoevsky is that you really cannot argue against what Raskolnikov using just reason. With reason he wins with morality he loses. The question then no longer is who is right but what is the right philosophy. Who exactly is guilty and who should be punished? What should the punishment be and would punishment lead to redemption? Or would redemption come from performing good deeds? Can you offset your murder footprint?

Perhaps the thing that affected me the most was the way Dostoevsky wrote about Raskolnikov’s innermost thoughts, how he described his delirium, his suffering, and his descent into insanity. I usually don’t find decay poetic or beautiful but in this case I just could not stop admiring the writer’s genius and skill.

Although this is a bad thing to do while reading this book, I could not prevent myself from identifying with some aspects of the protagonist’s personality and thoughts. This book has given me a lot to think about and perhaps made a little more humble and a little less cocky.