Cosmoetica 2008-09-30
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
The novel is a very good one, and compared to the crap that passes as literature these days it is a classic, however, it is not a great piece of literature. The book has too many manifest flaws, such as being far too long, far too `talky', and most of all, aside from the belief that it's a `Christian tract', the biggest misread of the book is that it is somehow a work of `social realism'. Nothing could be less true- it is primarily a work of symbolism. This is evident from its title, as the very punishment referred to is not that of the legal variety, but that of internal guilt. Yes, when it was first published, in pre-Freudian 1866, it may have seemed a work of psychological depth, but even compared to the fiction of Anton Chekhov, just a few decades later, it is utterly Neolithic in its approach to the human psyche....If Dostoevsky's novel can be considered great, by some, it is not because of the things he intended within it that manifest its greatness, but that which was unwitting, and beyond him at the time, such as the real key to understanding the work, its great insight, that people do not change at a fundamental level. I was recently watching the Up documentary film series, by Michael Apted, on DVD, and those films are premised on the very notion that Crime And Punishment is, the Jesuit saying of `Give me the child till he is seven, and I shall give you the man.' We do not glimpse Raskolnikov at seven, but given what we know becomes of him it is not difficult to extrapolate that he was as amoral then as his twentysomething self appears in the book. If Dostoevsky intended this work to be an allegory on Christianity's redemptive power he clearly failed, so I posit that that was not his intent at all, and that the psychological and ethical stasis of most human beings was his major theme.
Regardless, the book is not a great piece of art. It contains great moments, some brilliant writing, and is a very good work of art, however primitive, but it is certainly not great. A modern reader can simply not ignore all its manifest flaws, such as the awkward and heavy-handed symbolism, the stilted and unrealistic dialogue, which reinforces the truth of the characters' symbolism, as it veers between mawkishness during some of the death scenes and Raskolnikov's several confession scenes, and preachiness in many of the philosophical engagements.
Another problem with the work, one not in the actual work, but in its willful misinterpretation by critics with axes to grind, is that, aside from the confusion over the literary value of the work, all the poor theories regarding psychology and the fundaments of criminality have somehow found their way into pop culture, and done much to lead people astray in their ideas of true good and evil. Yet, the many fundamental questions that Raskolnikov deals with are never directly addressed, and are only used as a flawed premise for the main action of the novel to go off on. Raskolnikov ponders why those who have power or mass murder in war are labeled heroes, gain fame and respect, have paeans and monuments made for them while the low born, who have to struggle with and against each other, are jailed if they kill. In Part Five, Chapter Four, he rationalizes not confessing to the murders by using this defense: `What wrong have I done them? Why should I go to them? What should I say to them? That's only a phantom....They destroy men by millions themselves and look on it as a virtue. They are knaves and scoundrels, Sonia! I am not going to them. And what should I say to them- that I murdered her, but did not dare to take the money and hid it under a stone?' he added with a bitter smile. `Why, they would laugh at me, and would call me a fool for not getting it. A coward and a fool! They wouldn't understand and they don't deserve to understand. Why should I go to them?' This is a philosophically legitimate point, yet, instead of plumbing this, and applying it to the social caste he exists within, Raskolnikov flies off into mere pop sociological dementia with his ideas on supermen and exceptionalism, never realizing that exceptionalism in one or two fields, no matter how exceeding, brilliant, nor gifted, does not imply any sort of reciprocal ethical exceptionalism.
Yet, throughout the book, despite moments of brilliance, whenever Dostoevsky gets too close to the core, the nub of what the book is really about, he backs away. Whether because he lacked the answer or lacked the desire to deal with its clash with his own belief systems I do not know. But it is a flaw, and one that results in banal and bland sermonizing, such as that which ends the book in a very trite Hollywood film fashion:
He did not know that the new life would not be given him for nothing, that he would have to pay dearly for it, that it would cost him great striving, great suffering.
But that is the beginning of a new story- the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life. That might be the subject of a new story, but our present story is ended.
To end, Crime And Punishment is certainly a milestone work in the development of both Dostoevsky and the art of the novel, but a work's cultural or artistic import is not equivalent to its artistic excellence. Therefore, while it may be a great representation of its time, artistically and culturally, it is not a great book- neither as a social tract nor as a novel. It reads more like a mid-stage version of better models to come, which is exactly what it really is. The very fact that such gross misreadings of it has taken root is a testament to the laziness of most readers, and the unwillingness of most to think for themselves. It is this problem with readers, their own anomic stasis, writ into the larger society, that Dostoevsky actually deals with. Raskolnikov, however, still smiles.
