Posted: March 30, 2024

Why did Raskolnikov decide to kill somebody? And why was it such an event?

To answer the second question first: Murder is an event because killing somebody is a violation of Christian law as well as a legal violation. Therefore it is an act that is condemned by both God and man. To commit murder is forbidden, it is crossing a blood red line - a significant event for the perpetrator and an event that the society that perpetrator lives in condemns, punishes, and cannot ignore.

Raskolnikov knows this. He knows he has options and murder must not be one of them.

So the first question. Why did he do it? Did he do it because he was poor and had no money? I don’t think so. And here is where Razumikhin must come into the analysis. Razumikhin, like Raskolnikov, is also a poor student. Razumkhin’s response: work on the side to earn some money.

This option is also open to Raskolnikov, why didn’t he do this instead? Herein lies the key. The reason why Raskolnikov chose not to work but to kill instead was because this act was not about money. It is about self-worth. Raskolnikov felt worthless. He moved through his days and he no longer respected himself. Such a state drenches every aspect of life with bitterness; ;makes all of life unenjoyable and unendurable.

Raskolnikov had to do something so that he could respect himself again. He decided to violate the rules of God and man. But why would this restore his self-respect?

He viewed this act as proving that he is above the rules of god and man. That he was special - like Napoleon and a select few others in history. Raskolnikov was enthralled by this concept; he held on to it because if he could believe this, really believe this, he could feel some level of worth. A level of worth that could be bolstered by not only believing but putting the belief into practice.

Therefore he expected the murder to make him feel good about himself because it would prove he was a special being - above all the paltry laws.

The above being such, I am very interested to note how Raskolnikov felt about himself apart from his considerations about escaping from the law and other people finding out. Before the murder Raskolnikov felt worthless, after the murder through several stages. He tried to deny he felt regretful, which he was. He tried justifying the act, but no longer saying that he had every right to do it, rather, he told himself that he had killed useless people. He tried focusing on it from an aspect not related to his personal views of himself but from the more practical aspect of not getting caught.

The murder made him unable to appreciate good things that happened to him like the visit from his mother and sister; like Razumikhin giving him some money. The murder was supposed to make Raskolnikov feel good about himself and his life but it did not.

Why did the act make sense to him before it was done but no sense at all after it was done? I think self-deception has a lot to do with it.

Raskolnikov thought that by violating laws he was, in some way, healing himself. And the laws had to be violated because it was not working for him. He was poor and miserable. Therefore th the law became a hateful thing that must be violated; in doing so he would therefore be creating new laws for himself - laws that would allow him to thrive.

With the murders done, where was this new law? Nowhere. His act reveals itself not as the birth of a new personal law but a protest against the old one, a desperate lashing out against how life is constructed. An act of anger and frustration about an unacceptable place in the scheme of things. With pain registering as self disrespect - painful and terrible.

Another question at this point is: does Crime and Punishment show what Raskolnikov should have done instead. It very clearly shows what Raskolnikov should not have done but does it give lessons to the reader about what should be done in moments when all self-respect is lost and life becomes painful?

For a reader going through what Raskolnikov is going through - a complete breakdown of self-esteem - it is not enough to simply say “don’t do anything rash”. Advice for positive action would be immensely helpful. What should one do?

I recall the last part of the book stating that Raskolnikov at last accepted his crime and had therefore become a person able to bear immense joy as well as immense pain.

Acceptance leading to the ability to bear immense pain.

That could be it; that could be the key. Let us rewind this story to a time before the crime was committed. Let us join Raskolnikov feeling the constant torture of losing his self-respect and his urgency to restore his ability to like himself.

What should he have done? He should have fully accepted the pain and torture of the moment. He should have allowed himself to be in pain; no resistance. This acceptance, this allowing, would give him, at this moment, what he had at the end of Crime and Punishment . The ability to bear immense pain. No other action would have been required; certainly not murder.

So about us? What does this tell us? The same: Let us in times of personal crisis not turn away but embrace the pain, the confusion, the torture. Let us accept and in the acceptance find the ability to endure - and perhaps even more than that.