I unexpectedly finished Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment yesterday evening and so I thought I'd quickly post about it before I forget about it or just put it off forever. It was another Kindle edition translated by Constance Garnett, published by Xist Publishing, California.
So Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment are sort of my first experiences of Russian literature and in their own way they are quite bleak but obviously exploring important social issues. I was somewhat glad that Dostoyevsky more or less jumped into the crime without much delay. I took a week or so off reading this novel in between because I was busy and because of or, perhaps, in spite of that, I found the novel to seem rather repetitive and long in the interval period of the crime taking place and main character's decision of what he will do with himself and his life now that the crime had been committed. This obviously is done on purpose to reflect the long, unending suffering and confusion of the character.
An important and central idea in the novel is that the crime itself is the punishment for the criminal, one that Raskolnikov touches upon in his article by suggesting that after a crime, often the criminal will fall ill, have a fever or experience some sort of delirium. The guilt of the crime and perhaps even paranoia can lead to mental, spiritual and physical illnesses. This same idea is expressed in Hamza Yusuf's commentary of his translation in Purification of the Heart. It is synonymous with Islamic spirituality that the spiritual heart can suffer from diseases, which are manifest in negative and sinful behaviour and certain behaviour can remedy or increase diseases too. Dostoyevsky explores guilt rather through psychology and redemption through confession, religion, as well as suffering.
While on the point of psychology, I found that the novel looks at the madness of living with sin or a crime that is caused by cognitive dissonance. The mental effects on a person are so strong that an option to find comfort somewhere is to find it in religion, as Sonia does.
Another central idea behind the crime itself was the idea of there being a small, elite group of people who are criminals of their time, because they transgress the limits of the society or context they're in, but in the next generation they are considered heroes. Dostoyevsky uses the examples of Napoleon and Muhammad (pbuh) in his novel. Arguably we could see the late Nelson Mandala in the same light, how he was imprisoned for 27 years and now he is a hero to the world. This brings up issues on Absolute Truth, and Absolute right and wrong versus the concepts we live with today of everything being relative, and therefore truth is always relative and consequently laws will always only be relative. Absolute Truth means that certain things will remain true regardless of the place, time or location and while many things may be relative and dependent on the context and situation, there will always be constant undying, unchanging truths that underpin laws and society. For example, intentionally killing an innocent person is and always will be wrong. This is an example of something someone could take as an absolute truth. Now the relative, situational aspects come in when the killing is unintentional (manslaughter) or justified through the person being guilty of a serious crime (i.e. murder)- with the latter example only being allowed through the state laws and after having gone through valid legal proceedings etc. The same applies to virtue too, for example racism in all forms is unjust and unacceptable, if we consider this an Absolute Truth, then people who defend this in contexts where this is not the case, will be seen as criminals until the world sees it is superior to the relative perception used by a certain government for example.
Dostoyevsky also explores crime as a choice, one that may be selected due to desperation or even frustration. We see this in the character Sonia who chooses to commit crime to feed her family, while Raskolnikov is rather frustrated with himself and commits the crime to try to prove something to himself. Both chose the crime and suffer according to their reason for it.
We also see how committing a crime is not necessarily only a punishment for the criminal but also those who are close to him or her, through a sense of betrayal they are punished as well as a double punishment for the criminal himself or herself.
Overall, I found it a worthwhile read with important themes of justice, power, poverty and virtue.
No comments:
Post a Comment