Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

 (Book Review)
So, wouldn’t you know it, I commit myself to this book review project, and then the first book I finish is one that I have nothing intelligent to say about.

I did this as an audio book. I’ve mentioned before that I’m a big fan of listening to audio books while driving or in my apartment because it allows me to get through a lot more books than I ordinarily would otherwise. And recently I’ve decided that Audio books is also the best way to get through all those books that I know I probably should read, but realistically will never get around to. Hence the audio book of “Crime and Punishment”, a book I doubt I would ever have had the patience read cover to cover otherwise.

But, audio books do have disadvantages as well. While listening to the tapes, I felt like the book was just washing over me without me fully absorbing much of it. I should probably listen to it several more times before I form an intelligent opinion. However since I’ve committed myself to this project, I will at least jot down a few thoughts.

My image of a Dostoevsky book is a long book with very little story, consisting mainly of characters making long speeches to each other, like “The Brothers Karamazov”, which I started but never finished. So, I was pleasantly surprised to find that “Crime and Punishment” at least had several sub-plots running through it, which helped to keep the story interesting. I’m not sure if all the sub-plots were enough to justify the book’s length (brevity is obviously not Dostoevsky’s strength), but there was at least more action in this book than I expected.

What I found most interesting was not the story itself, but the introduction telling of Dostoevsky’s conversion from a young socialist to a conservative. Even though Dostoevsky and his friends did little more than make toasts to the revolution, in 1840s Europe this was a dangerous hobby, and he was arrested and sentenced to death. As he was standing before the firing squad, a messenger on a horse galloped up at the last minute to announce he had been pardoned. It was all part of a plot to scare the young intellectuals. Still shaking, Dostoevsky was lead off to Siberia to a work camp for several years, where his only allowed reading material was the bible. Then when his time in Siberia was up, he was made to serve in the army for several years. And when he came back to St. Petersburg, he was no longer the same man. He had become a religious conservative and a believer in Czarism.

I couldn’t help but think that if Dostoevsky had lived 100 years later, and had been born a conservative, and been converted to Socialism by those same methods, people would label it communist brainwashing, and disregard everything he had to say after his conversion.

That’s not of course to try and take anything away from his brilliance or try and make any cheap shots at “Crime and Punishment” or any of his other conservative works. It’s just something that I couldn’t help thinking about when I heard the introduction.

In the book Dostoevsky (or one of his characters) argues against the socialist doctrine that all crime is economically motivated. This is a fair point, although somewhat of a straw man. Even in the 1860s there was a great diversity of opinion among the socialists, and not all socialists believed this. And even if they did, it’s but one point of a larger platform, and demolishing this point does not demolish Socialism in general.

But I’m nit picking. That was not the main point of the book. The main point of the book was against the idea of killing for a cause. The main character believes his crime is justified because of his intellectual theory. And Dostoevsky does an excellent job of demolishing this. Every captured terrorist should be made to read this book as part of their rehabilitation.

But then let us be consistent. If it’s wrong for the young intellectual to kill for a cause, it’s wrong for the governmental authorities to kill as well. Although some references to Napoleon are made, I don’t think Dostoevsky comes down as hard on the government as on the individual.

But I close this review with the same thoughts as I opened it. I don’t think I fully absorbed this book yet, and need to re-listen to it. In the meantime, I welcome any comments from anyone who has more insight into this book.

Link of the Day
Like Phil, I've been reading Jana's blog with interest lately. As someone with two adopted siblings, I also found some of these thoughts uncomfortable, but thought provoking.

Video Versions