Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky is a novel whose plot reflects its title. It is about a terrible crime and punishment that is both reality - based and psychological. Along the way Dostoyevsky has fashioned a work filled great fictional characters. The book is also chock full of ideas and philosophical musing about life, death, God, government, crimes, punishment, and lots more. The novel was first published in 1866. I read the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation.

This is the story of Rodion Raskolnikov, a young ex -college student. As part of an attempted theft, Raskolnikov plots and carries out the murder of pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna. He also kills her virtuous sister Lizaveta, who walks in on the crime. The murder takes place fairly early in the plot. Most of the novel concerns itself with the post - murder doings of Raskolnikov, his family and friends, as well as the police investigation that eventually ensures. 

The idea that Raskolnikov might be redeemed takes up a lot of the philosophizing in later parts of the book. Dostoyevsky explores ideas related to The Bible, Christianity as well as Raskolnikov’s psychological state and philosophy. 

As mentioned above, the novel is filled with superbly crafted characters. Razumikhin is Raskolnikov’s best friend who genuinely tries to help the protagonist. Dunya is Raskolnikov’s sister who is engaged in the unscrupulous government official Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin. Svidrigaïlov is a wealthy landowner who tried to seduce and later marry Dunya. Sonya is a young woman who is forced into prostitution to support her family. Raskolnikov is attracted to Sonya and forms an important relationship with her. Porfiry Petrovich is a police detective who uses psychological tactics and games to get at the truth. Those familiar with television’s Colombo character will find a lot that is familiar in Porfiry. The television character was partially based upon him. 

There is a lot going on here. Throughout the book all these characters, as well as many others, interact as Dostoevsky tries to portray something about life. I have previously read Dostoevsky’s The Devils and The Brothers Karamazov. As was typical with those books, this novel is characterized by lots of characters and interacting plot threads. I thought that this had a less complex plot then those novels however. With that, it is impossible to share my thoughts about every aspect of this novel in a single post. Dostoyevsky goes off in a lot of directions within these pages. Instead, as I have done in the past, I will write a few things about one interesting point here. 

Something that this work shares with the other Dostoyevsky books that I have read is the tendency for characters to embrace bad, radical ideas that lead to catastrophe. In this novel, these bad ideas tie in with the murders. Early on, Raskolnikov rationalizes his crime on the presumption that he will use the money that he is planning to steal for good. Furthermore, he has written pieces arguing that certain people should be exempt from punishment if they commit crime. These people should be exempt from the rules of society as they are “extraordinary”. Later he compares himself with Napoleon Bonaparte who he considers another extraordinary person. 

At one point Razumikhin is describing and article that Raskolnikov has written. 

there supposedly exist in the world certain persons who can … that is , who not only can but are fully entitled to commit all sorts of crimes and excesses and to whom the law supposedly does not apply . The whole point is that in his article all people are somehow divided into the ‘ordinary ’ and the ‘ extraordinary . ’ The ordinary must live in obedience and have no right to transgress the law, because they are, after all , ordinary . While the extraordinary have the right to commit all sorts of crimes and in various ways to transgress the law, because in point of fact they are extraordinary.

Later Raskolnikov further elaborates on his own theory,

Those of the second category all transgress the law, are destroyers or inclined to destroy, depending on their abilities. The crimes of these people, naturally, are relative and variegated; for the most part they call, in quite diverse declarations, for the destruction of the present in the name of the better. But if such a one needs, for the sake of his idea, to step even over a dead body, over blood, then within himself, in his conscience, he can, in my opinion, allow himself to step over blood—depending, however, on the idea and its scale—

The above quotation illustrates how Dostoyevsky has a knack for digging into ghastly ideas and how these ideas might influence people. Often radicals want to destroy the norms and rules of society. These radicals often put themselves in a special position. The metaphor of stepping over blood, which becomes a reality for Raskolnikov’s murderous actions are so well described. As in Dostoyevsky’s time, some people today have a greater tendency to play with very bad theories. Though most do not go as far as Raskolnikov, I think that it would be interesting to see what would make of some of our current intellectual trends. 

Raskolnikov is not hopeless however. A major theme of the book involves his redemption. Later on, the exploration of these awful theories intertwine themselves with Raskolnikov’srecovery from immorality. Porfiry points out that Raskolnikov’svacuous beliefs have fallen flat but that it is not to late for him,

He came up with a theory, and now he’s ashamed because it didn’t work, because it came out too unoriginally! True, it did come out meanly, but even so you’re not such a hopeless scoundrel. Not such a scoundrel at all! At least you didn’t addle your brain for long, you went all at once to the outermost pillars. Do you know how I regard you? I regard you as one of those men who could have their guts cut out, and would stand and look at his torturers with a smile—provided he’s found faith, or God. Well, go and find it, and you will live.

Raskolnikov is not a hopeless sociopath, so according to Porfiry, his humanity can still redeem him, despite having come under the influence of his own terrible theories. 

Dostoevsky wrote incredible books filled with amazing characters, themes and story lines. I have only summarized this above and touched on one of many interesting things that I found. This novel is bursting with all those things. This is a must read for those who appreciate Russian literature.

Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev

Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev was first published in 1862.  I found this to be a compelling philosophical novel populated with well crafted and complex characters. I read the Constance Garnett translation. 

This is the story of two young men, Yevgeny Bazarov and his friend Arkady Kirsanov. Bazarov is a nihilist. Arkady is a follower who has embraced Bazarov’s beliefs.  Nihilism, which was a thought system spreading through Russia at the time, is a key concept explored in this book. It is described by Arkady as follows, 

A nihilist is a man who does not bow down before any authority, who does not take any principle on faith, whatever reverence that principle may be enshrined in. 

As such, Bazarov is critical of most societal conventions, government, tradition and conceptions of beauty and art, among other things. 

The narrative follows the travels of Bazarov and Arkady as they visit several households in Russia. First, they visit Arkady’s father Nikolai Kirsanov. Nikolai is a liberal landowner which, at the time, made him someone who favored moderate reform in Russia. His political and social beliefs are at odds with the radical nihilism of Bazárov and Arkady. Nikolai’s brother, Pavel, is also on hand. Pavel is also a liberal who spends some time debating Bazarov. 

Next, the pair visit a widowed noblewoman, Anna Odintsova, and her sister, Katya.  Anna’s psyche is delved into by Turgenev in some depth. She is a woman who is somewhat obsessed with order and not rocking the boat. She is an interesting character in her own right. Bazarov begins to fall in love with her. These feelings cause his nihilistic beliefs to fray a bit. Arkady is likewise attracted to Katya. The young men's attractions to these women make up a major thread in the narrative through the end of the book. 

The pair also visit Bazarov’s parents. Bazarov’s father, Vassily, is also a liberal Russian. These political and social differences, as well as other issues, also put a strain on the relationship between Bazarov and his parents. This all plays into a major theme of the book as Turgenev explains the tensions between different generations. 

The two young men bounce back and forth between the three households throughout the story. Eventually, Bazarov’s tearing down of everything that Pavel values leads to Pavel calling out Bazarov to a duel.  This ends with Pavel being wounded, but also with the two more or less reconciling. In what I thought was some of the best writing in the book, Pavel comments on Bazárov’s degeneration of art and nature,

Nikolai Petrovitch’s head sank despondently, and he passed his hand over his face. “But to renounce poetry?” he thought again; “to have no feeling for art, for nature ...” And he looked round, as though trying to understand how it was possible to have no feeling for nature. It was already evening; the sun was hidden behind a small copse of aspens which lay a quarter of a mile from the garden; its shadow stretched indefinitely across the still fields. A peasant on a white nag went at a trot along the dark, narrow path close beside the copse; his whole figure was clearly visible even to the patch on his shoulder, in spite of his being in the shade; the horse’s hoofs flew along bravely. The sun’s rays from the farther side fell full on the copse, and piercing through its thickets, threw such a warm light on the aspen trunks that they looked liswallows flew high; the wind had quite died away, belated bees hummed slowly and drowsily among the lilac blossom; a swarm of midges hung like a cloud over a solitary branch which stood out against the sky. “How beautiful, my God!” thought Nikolai Petrovitch, and his favourite verses were almost on his lips;

I like the way, in the above passage, that Turgenev transitions from Pavel’s objection to Bazarov’s beliefs to his own musings upon the beauty of nature, to his own love of poetry and thus ends with  

his favourite verses were almost on his lips.

Turgenev was himself a moderate who rejected both the far-right reactionaries and the radical nihilists.  Both of these extremes were gaining popularity in Russia at the time that this was written. Bazarov’s character, however, was tame and moderate compared to Fyodor Dostoevsky’s psychotic and malevolent nihilistic characters, such as Verkhovensky in The Possessed. Dostoevsky’s nihilists also tend to gather around them a cult like following. Instead, Bazarov is somewhat likable and sympathetic. He has persuaded Arkady to embrace his cause, but he does not end up convincing anyone else. For his part, Arkady easily breaks free of Bazarov’s influence when he falls in love and becomes engaged to Katya. 

Though there was apparently some controversy at the time when this was published as to Turgenev’s view of nihilism, a little online searching makes it clear from Turgenev’s other writings and statements that he meant to be very critical of nihilism in this book. Bazarov is, however, a complex character.  He has flaws but he also has appealing traits. His philosophy is portrayed as terrible. At the same time, he is shown to be both charming and brave as he conducts himself with courage and honor in his duel with Pavel.  I would have liked it if there was more of Bazarov’s philosophizing included in the text. What there was of it, I found it to be interesting. At one point, he muses,

I think; here I lie under a haystack.... The tiny space I occupy is so infinitely small in comparison with the rest of space, in which I am not, and which has nothing to do with me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so petty beside the eternity in which I have not been, and shall not be.... And in this atom, this mathematical point, the blood is circulating, the brain is working and wanting something.... Isn’t it loathsome? Isn’t it petty?

As the above illustrates, Bazarov thinks about the big issues. With that, his ultimate outlook is incredibly negative. 

I found this to be very good book.   The characters are well drawn. If they are not brilliant they do posses a lot of subtlety and nuance. The themes, particularly that of differences between generations, are well presented and interesting  I liked the political and social moderate change that Turgenev espoused here. The Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy works that I have read seemed to tell bigger stories about bigger characters. Nonetheless, this book worked well in its own way. The plot and characters are very well crafted and are likely to hold the attention of readers who like such stories. I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys philosophical and character based novels. 

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Anna Karenina is known as story about infidelity. I found it to be about a whole lot more. The novel was first published in 1878. This is the first work that I have read by Leo Tolstoy. After a bit of research on the various translations available for this book, I chose the Louise and Aylmer Maude version. My copy of this novel ran 710 pages. Within these pages, Tolstoy has packed a lot in terms of drama, characterization, philosophy and more. I found that the result was brilliant but uneven.

This novel basically tells two parallel stories. First, there is the tale of Anna herself. The title character is a beautiful aristocratic woman. She is married to Count Karenin, a high government official. She meets and begins an affair with Count Vronsky, a young cavalry officer. Anna subsequently leaves her husband and son as she runs off with Vronsky. Much drama ensues as several issues continue to percolate, including the question of Karenin’s willingness or unwillingness to grant Anna a divorce, Anna’s distraught feelings over the estrangement from her son, Anna’s very mixed feelings towards Karenin, etc.

The other plot thread involves Konstantin Levin, a Russian landowner. Levin is an independent thinker. He courts and eventually marries Princess Katerina Shcherbatskaya, known as “Kitty.” Levin is focused upon the future of Russia, especially as it concerns the peasantry and agricultural policy. The ups and downs of Kitty and Levin’s relationship make up much of the narrative.

There is a third couple, Stepan Oblonsky and Darya Oblonskaya, known as “Dolly.” Stephan is Anna’s brother, and Dolly is Kitty’s sister. This pair is something of a link between the other two stories. Stepan is a serial philanderer, which is one of several reasons that the couple is unhappy. 

Almost every character in this book is marvelously fleshed out and complex. I could write pages and pages about almost every one of them. Both Anna and Levin are particularly complicated. Anna does many questionable things, including abandoning her son. She is unlikable, yet she is humanized and, at times, pitiable. Levin is likable and mostly virtuous but unusual. He is also a deep thinker who suffers from several inner crises. 

Much of the narrative involves high drama leading to tragedy in regards to Anna and her affair. Her interactions with her lover, her husband and her son reach a sublime level, and all four are shown to be complex and nuanced characters. 

Levin and Kitty’s story is also interesting, but the parts of the book about Levin also contain many pages of philosophizing between Levin and his friends as well as within Levin’s own mind. Levin’s musings include the nature of work, life’s meaning, death, relationships, the role of government, agriculture, war, religion and more.  Toward the end, he has an epiphany involving God that ties in thematically with the dark place that Anna finds herself in. Though I tend to like such musings, and I did enjoy some of this, other parts became a little dull, especially some long segments about labor and agriculture, even for me. These segments also seemed to not mix all that well with the drama in the book. All of this gives the novel a kind of irregular feel to it. 

The book is, in part, a study in relationships, as the famous opening lines indicate,

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Though a little online reading indicates there are varying interpretations on this subject, Levin and Kitty’s relationship, despite some ups and downs, ends up mostly happy. This is contrasted with every other romantic relationship in this book, which are unhappy and, in the case of Anna and Vronsky, lead to calamity. 

There is so much going on within these pages that it is impossible to examine even just the major points with a single post.  Instead, I am going to share a few thoughts about one particular aspect of Tolstoy’s writing style as it relates to characterization.  Much of the narrative is told in third -person. However, at many points, Tolstoy lapses into stream of consciousness for several of the characters. Unlike many other examples of this style that I have read, the stream of consciousness here is relatively straight-forward and follows a linear stream of thoughts. Thus, it is not all that different from conventional first-person narration. It seems that Tolstoy was one of the first authors to employ this technique, and his pioneering use of it may be the reason that it is fairly basic here. 

Tolstoy has a knack for getting into characters’ heads. He does this using this stream of conscious as well as more conventional third-person narration that heavily focuses on a particular character for multiple paragraphs.   At one point, Tolstoy even peeks into the mind of Levin’s dog, Laska.  When Levin and his brother interrupt their concentration during a hunting trip to talk about life matters, Laska becomes annoyed that they will miss the birds that they are hunting, 

Laska , with ears pricked up , was looking upwards at the sky , and reproachfully at them . “ They have chosen a time to talk , ” she was thinking . “ It’s on the wing . . . . Here it is , yes , it is. They’ll miss it”

A melding of the magnificent characterization found in this novel and this style occurs with Anna. At several points, Tolstoy uses this style to really get into her head and to convey emotion. For instance, after living with Vronsky for over a year, she finds herself unable to obtain a divorce from her husband. At the same time, her relationship with Vronsky is deteriorating due to her own instability and unfounded jealousy. She begins to suffer from wild mood swings and paranoia. Tolstoy gets into her head very effectively here, 

Some noisy men were quiet as she passed them on the platform , and one whispered something about her to another — something vile , no doubt . She stepped up on the high step , and sat down in a carriage by herself on a dirty seat that had been white . Her bag lay beside her , shaken up and down by the springiness of the seat ..an impudent conductor slammed the door and the latch . A grotesque - looking lady wearing a bustle ( Anna mentally undressed the woman , and was appalled at her hideousness ) , and a little girl laughing affectedly ran down the platform .

At this point, Anna is unreliable. The reader is not sure if the young men were whispering something vile or not. She is showing hostility toward not just them, but to the conductor and to the woman who is described as grotesque. Her thoughts about mentally undressing this woman seem particularly nasty. The laughing little girl seems to add to the funhouse-like scene that is running through Anna’s mind. 

At another slightly more lucid movement, Anna contemplates the deteriorating relationship between herself and Vronsky;

“My love keeps growing more passionate and egoistic , while his is waning and waning , and that’s why we’re drifting apart . ” She went on musing . “ And there’s no help for it . He is everything for me , and I want him more and more to give himself up to me entirely . And he wants more and more to get away from me . We walked to meet each other up to the time of our love , and then we have been irresistibly drifting in different directions . And there’s no altering that . He tells me I’m insanely jealous , and I have told myself that I am insanely jealous but  it’s not true . I’m not jealous , but I’m unsatisfied.

Anna is also not completely seeing reality above. Vronsky’s attempts to “get away” from Anna is him just straining against Anna’s stifling behavior. She seems to realize that her jealousy is a problem, but then pulls back from that revelation. I think that the above quotation illustrates how Tolstoy is able to craft such subtle and nuanced characters and plot. 

As noted above, I found this novel both  uneven and brilliant. The parts that involve emotional human interaction and extremely well thought out characters are interspaced with Levin’s ruminations about nearly everything under the sun.  Yet, much of the work was grandly written with sublime characters and a story that touched upon all sorts of important issues involving life and the universe. A reader should approach this work knowing that Tolstoy will be taking them in a lot of directions, some of them very unconventional. I highly recommend this to anyone prepared for such a ride.