r/dostoevsky

View Poll

This might sound like a hot take, but bear with me: Raskolnikov did not kill to prove he's an "extraordinary man." People commonly point to his theory as a motive or even his financial/family situation, but neither are the starting point.

In his confession to Sonya, he says he struggled to support himself financially in university even though he had multiple ways of earning money, such as tutoring, so why didn't he do it? His explanation is seemingly illogical:

>"But I turned spiteful and didn't want to. Precisely, I turned spiteful (it's a good phrase!). Then I hid in my corner like a spider...And do you know, Sonya, low ceiling and cramped rooms cramp the soul and mind! Oh, how I hated that kennel! And yet I didn't want to leave it. I purposely didn't want to!" (p439)

The Underground Man from Notes From Underground is the progenitor of all of Dostoevsky's tormented intellectuals, and masochism runs through their veins. Raskolnikov returns to the scene of the crime to ring the same bell that terrified him when he was trapped, and he even taunts Zametov with a blatant confession. It's easy to write off some actions to a guilty conscience or delirium, but why would Raskolnikov choose to rot in his room? As the Underground Man says, the greatest profit for man - beyond reason, love, and happiness - is specifically the free will to harm oneself; like a man loudly bemoaning a toothache but refusing to see a dentist, there's a wicked pleasure in both self-pity and resentment of others who you believe don't understand your pain.

Raskolnikov's solitude catalyzes his grand theory. A major theme throughout C&P is essentially "no man is an island", and that the only way to discover inner joy (or peace, or faith, for Dostoevsky treats these as equivalent notions) is through connection with others. Raskolnikov severs his ties with friends, family, and society standing before the Crystal Palace, a moment of spiritual suicide. When alone, pity and spite can rapidly fester into a "you vs. the world" mindset, where you stop envying others for not suffering and instead start aggrandizing your own, disdaining the people around you for not understanding life and philosophy as well as you do: "Am I so stupid that, if others are stupid, and I know for certain they're stupid, I myself don't want to be smarter?" (p439). In The Idiot, this is exactly what happens to Ippolit as he is bedridden with consumption, favoring the bleak austerity of a brick wall over a view of nature, proud of the intellectual merits of his nihilism born from his illness. Ironically, it is only when Raskolnikov is exiled to Siberia and is sitting with Sonya in complete silence that he is spiritually reborn. 

This sets us up to answer why he committed murder. Is it because of his theory? Yes, but it's not because he wanted to become an extraordinary man. Instead, Raskolnikov was tormented by the realization he could never become an extraordinary man. He knew well-beforehand his conscience would not permit it: "I myself am perhaps even more vile and nasty than the louse I killed, and I had anticipated beforehand that I would tell myself so after I killed her. Can anything compare with such horror?" (p288). He wanted to prove himself wrong because it was the only way to silence his thoughts:

>"I was so sick, so sick of all this babble then! I wanted to forget everything and start anew, Sonya, and to stop babbling. Do you really think I went into it headlong, like a fool? No, I went into it like a clever boy, and that’s what ruined me!...I wanted to kill without casuistry, Sonya, to kill for myself, for myself alone! I didn’t want to lie about it even to myself!...I did not kill so that, having obtained means and power, I could become a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense!...whether I would later become anyone’s benefactor, or would spend my life like a spider, catching everyone in my web and sucking the life-sap out of everyone, should at that moment have made no difference to me!...I wanted to find out then, and find out quickly, whether I was a louse like all the rest, or a man? Would I be able to step over, or not! Would I dare to reach down and take, or not?"

In other words, he did not kill for money, his family, or mankind. In fact, if he committed murder and just went right back to rotting in bed and hating the world again, that also would've been totally fine. All he wanted was to stop thinking.

It may sound like semantics, but the distinction is crucial. The difference between "wanting to become a Napoleon" and "tormented by the realization he could never become a Napoleon" is one of consciousness. Raskolnikov wanted to murder in order to quell his fervent inner dialogue that was spiraling out of control, because as the Underground Man says, consciousness is a sickness: "For the direct, lawful, immediate fruit of consciousness is inertia - that is, a conscious sitting with folded arms." According to Raskolnikov, the chief characteristic of Napoleon is that he does not ask questions of morality, so the mere fact he's thinking about morality automatically disqualifies him from becoming an extraordinary man. To do nothing but sit in his room is exactly inertia, and to think about it is even more inertia. The reason I'm emphasizing "consciousness" so much here is because this is one of the core pillars in Dostoevsky's works: you cannot rationalize your way into morality, yet this knowledge is useless because you can't rationalize your way into not rationalizing. Instead of reason, acts of unconditional love, as Sonya represents to Raskolnikov in the end, reconnects you with others and even to yourself.

Raskolnikov's tragedy was that he suffered from overthinking ("I was so sick, so sick of all this babble then!") yet he knew no amount of thinking could fix overthinking ("No, I went into it like a clever boy, and that's what ruined me!"). The only solution was action, and because he knew it, the solution instantly became impossible, which he also knew and still murdered anyways. To commit an act you know will fail and bring more suffering is simply masochism.

I’m currently re-reading The Brothers Karamazov and I’ve been thinking about Smerdyakov. I read Brothers K first and then Crime and Punishment, but for those who did the opposite and read C&P first, did you manage to predict he was the killer on your first pass?

There are two moments that feel like huge red flags if you are familiar with Dostoevsky’s patterns.
First, that conversation with Ivan where Smerdyakov essentially admits he is going to fake an epileptic fit.
Second, the way his fit coincides perfectly with the timing of Fyodor’s death. It feels so similar to the way timing and physical states are used with Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment.

Did anyone else pick up on those parallels early on or was the reveal still a complete surprise?

Given the deeply sincere and trusting nature of a character like Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s "The Idiot", What advice would you offer him if he were to live in a modern society where manipulation, self-interest and moral compromise are common social behaviors?

How could someone with his level of innocence, empathy and moral purity navigate such an environment without being repeatedly exploited or emotionally harmed?

What advice would you offer to a person like Myshkin to remain compassionate and authentic while also develop the necessary boundaries, discernment and emotional resilience needed to avoid the kind of tragic downfall he ultimately experiences in the novel?

Practical, real life, implementable/actionable advice.

after a year. I read it a year ago and for nearly a year I didn‘t managd to read the last 100 pages or so, but now I did!

I don‘t have anything profound to say besides that it was exactly what I wanted it to be. It was long, layered and very interesting. There are sooo many angles from which you can analyse it. And so many different things you can ponder about

my (personal) favourite moment from the book was the onion.

Great book

edit: *Karamazov 😔

This is an appreciation post.

For those who don’t know, Rachmaninov was a Russian composer and pianist. For me, his music will forever be intertwined with Dostoevsky

When I was 14, I developed a chronic illness so severe I had to stay home for months. So I began reading crime & punishment, for hours on end, with Rachmaninov’s concertos playing as my ‘musical counterpart’. It was a messy, feverish crash into existential dread for my very first time.

His music is so tragically beautiful, it aligns so well with the tinge of sentimentality in raskolnikov’s grim life. It really did comfort me. I used to play the piano too, but the illness stopped me from performing for years. I mourned through more novels, more concertos, and I just couldn’t stop crying because somehow they made loss feel both painful and strangely sacred. I guess Dostoevsky just has a way of doing that. His books got me through my darkest times, and I’m grateful for that. (he isn’t quite as bleak as camus and kafka)

I just finished reading Crime and Punishment. It was obviously fantastic, but something has bothered me about Raskolnikov's motive. It seems his motive was that he wanted to be an extraordinary man, however, why did he think killing was what was going to make that happen?

I understand that in his article he stated that extraordinary men can get away with things outside of law, simply to justify progress, etc. However, what progress was Raskolnikov thinking he was achieving by murdering her? It seems he mostly used his own theory as an excuse to call himself extraordinary because he was so unsatisfied with his own life, being mostly ordinary himself.

I apologize if I missed something obvious, as this is the first book I've finished in, well, years.

It makes a simple but deep analysis, it focuses on the scene that occurs on part 6 chapter 6, but includes other characters such as Rodia, Sonia, Dunia etc., a very insightful read. Hope it hasn't been published before, thanks for reading!

In part 3 chapter 2 Luzhin has sent a letter telling Raskolnikov's mother and sister that Raskolnikov gave money to the widow for funeral. Later in chapter 3 Raskolnikov picks this point with Dunya as well that Luzhin has lied by saying he gave money to Daughter.

My question is that how did he know?

Hello everybody, I read crime and punishment probably about five years ago. I have only read it once and will admit. I probably read it faster than I should have. Although I did gain a lot from it. I have now started the brothers Karamazov. I was just wondering if there are any resources online or maybe even another book to read along side that will help my understanding of the book and add to the experience