deep dive: crime and punishment
reflections, notes, and annotations on a masterpiece that taught me more about the psyche than anything else
I never understood why certain books were labeled classics and others weren’t. Quite frankly, I enjoyed non-classics far more! They were more entertaining and easily digestible, creating a far more enjoyable reading experience.
I’ve started to understand that I had the wrong perspective when approaching classics. Instead of reading them for the plot or entertainment, I’ve started viewing them as explorations of human phenomenology. Authors of classical literature are all extremely discerning, often far more discerning than doctors or psychologists, of how humans act and the core drivers of behavior. They identify slices of the human spirit and animate them within the characters they create, using these books to explore how these slices interact and engage with one another. They are real, penetrating, and fundamental in a way that plot- or entertainment-centric books just aren’t. If you take the time to truly engage with each of these books, question the motivations and drives of each of the characters, and seek to understand why certain things are unfolding the way they are, you’ll find that the answers you uncover are timeless and teach far more than any nonfiction book could. And it’ll stick! That’s the power of a good story.
That was certainly my experience when reading Crime and Punishment. When I decided to read the book, I wasn’t expecting to engage with it or annotate it the way I did, and I definitely didn’t expect to spend almost a month studying the text, constantly reading and re-reading certain passages that challenged my understanding.
I don’t know how to describe the impact this book had on me; it transformed me. There’s something about seeing human tendencies or inclinations written out and animated in text that registers differently. I gained a deeper understanding and empathy for myself and others when exploring why certain passages and scenarios resonated; it helped me uncover latent and hidden drivers of behavior that never would have surfaced into my conscious awareness if I didn’t see them laid out the way Dostoevsky described.
It was an intensely personal experience, and I know my experience with the book will be different from everyone else’s. But I still wanted to describe my core takeaways and lay out my notes and annotations to serve as an entry point into the book for all those who might be interested in taking the plunge. It is well worth your time.
core takeaways
investigation into crime and sin
Why do people sin? What happens to you psychologically if you do? What kind of life is in store for you after? What is the purpose of confession and repentance?
These are all questions that Dostoevsky explores through the character of Rodion Raskolnikov, the novel’s main character. The story begins with Raskolnikov’s murder of two helpless women and ends with his confession to the police. Raskolnikov himself didn’t understand why he committed the murders; he had a vague and undefined sense, a “theory”, that he had the right to commit them, but he never was given sufficient time to formalize the theory before the perfect opportunity emerged for him to commit the murder. In a trance-like state, he leaped at the chance, feeling as if fate itself was driving him towards the action, validating his inner belief. The rest of the novel depicts his psychological state as he seeks to navigate the burdens of his actions and his desire to escape punishment and judgment from those he views beneath him.
We never do get a clear answer to why Raskolnikov murdered the women. He cycles through various explanations but finds them all hollow and insufficient. I think Dostoevsky views this crime as a crime of immaturity and lack of development. Raskolnikov landed on an “idea” that he grew attached to, one he thought would cement his status as above other beings. His idea was that some “extraordinary” people like Napoleon are given the right to murder people and commit countless atrocities in the name of their ambitions. He asks himself what separates him from the Napoleons of the world; he answers that they just had the daring to act upon their inner sense of superiority, so he seeks to do the same. Raskolnikov makes a couple of mistakes here. For one, he views his own ambition and achievement as separate from the well-being of others; any mature adult knows that their happiness, contentment, and fulfillment are inextricably tied to the fates of those around them. For another, he views the lack of legal punishment faced by Napoleon as implicit validation of his actions but fails to consider the psychological and karmic price that Napoleon paid. The novel intimately details the insanity that Raskolnikov experienced as a result of his crimes; by the end, his only choices were suicide or confession. There was no other way out.
The other thing that happens is that Raskolnikov intellectualizes his actions. He’s trapped on a never-ending mental seesaw. On one end, he believes in the justifications of his actions; he believes he was ridding the world of a “louse” and views his actions as pragmatic. On the other, he’s reminded that he actually killed people and can’t stomach that thought. His rationale only has substance if he removes the humanity or the reality of the action; if he dehumanizes others or if he views his actions as “provisional” and lacking substance. He himself can’t believe that it happened; it was all supposed to be a simple thought experiment.
Dostoevsky also never directly answers why Raskolnikov confessed to his crime instead of committing suicide. Interestingly enough, one of the side characters Svidrigailov actually does commit suicide, and he’s in the opposite position as Raskolnikov; he’s rich and he wears his depravity on his sleeves, unashamedly seeking sensual satisfaction in every form. Svidrigailov thinks he and Raskolnikov are similar by not hesitating to fulfill their desires no matter what societal laws or expectations they’re transgressing. The difference is that Raskolnikov has people around him who love him, while Svidrigailov has no one. Svidrigailov commits suicide after he fully accepts his desire for others to want him and love him and recognizes its unreality and his isolation.
Love may be the reason that Raskolnikov didn’t commit suicide, but it doesn’t answer why he chose to confess. Raskolnikov has no rational answer; at the time of his confession, he doesn’t repent his actions and he doesn’t wish to submit to the judgment of others. Some force or compulsion just comes over him, and he has an innate realization that that’s what he must do. It’s an act of duty, not choice. Part of this compulsion is his understanding that he cannot continue to suffer his psychological torment, so his only option is to exchange that with a different form of suffering.
Eventually, a couple of years into his sentence, Raskolnikov finally repents and begins his pathway toward redemption and renewal. He has a dream in which everyone, possessed with the same theory that he does, murders and kills others without abandon, thinking that they’re the only ones who possess the divine plan and have the right to shape the world to their will, causing the world to burn. It’s not clear what understanding overcomes him, but he falls to his knees and weeps to Sonia, a representation of his guilt and repentance, and at this time, the remaining seven years of his sentence feel immaterial; he’s possessed with life and a desire for renewal.
I love how Dostoevsky separated the confession from guilt and repentance. They represent different levels of maturity and rarely happen at the same time; the necessity to confess always precedes an understanding of the harm inflicted, and many conflate the two, believing confession is the end of the cycle. But it’s only the first of many steps towards renewal and regeneration, and Dostoevsky explicitly states this in the last lines of the novel:
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.
He ends with the unequivocal message that redemption is possible even for those who have committed the worst of crimes; that suffering, atonement, and punishment are worth it, and that life itself is worth it, no matter the circumstances.
discussion of progressivism
I really enjoyed how Dostoevsky weaved in social commentary around the “young progressive” cause through a couple of chapters. The biggest thing that stood out to me was how similar the thought process of young progressives back in the day is to progressives now; the only thing that has shifted is the specific policies or objects of discussion. But the way of engaging with the others remains the same! Dostoevsky was saying things 150+ years ago that are highly relevant now. It’s humbling; while society as a whole has changed significantly, it’s evidence that humanity hasn’t developed or evolved as much as we may think we have. At a high level, Dostoevsky harbors distrust towards progressives, arguing that they tend to be idealistic, radical, and ungrounded in experience. It’s hard to explain the nuance of some of the discussions that took place in the novel, but here is some ChatGPT slop that I think synthesize them pretty well:
Dostoevsky intersperses several side chapters and dialogues that engage directly with themes of socialism and the ideology of young progressives. These moments don’t dominate the main plot but serve as a critique of the intellectual and political trends of Dostoevsky’s time—especially the rise of radical youth movements and utopian socialism.
Key Themes in the Side Discussions:
1. The Progressive "Cause" as Moral Abstraction
In conversations among characters like Razumikhin, Lebezyatnikov, and others, Dostoevsky presents progressive ideology—often in the form of shallow mimicry of Western European socialism—as disconnected from lived human experience. Young progressives are shown to embrace abstract ideals like equality, communal living, and radical change without a grounded moral or spiritual framework.
2. Lebezayatnikov: A Satirical Caricature
Andrei Semyonovich Lebezyatnikov serves as a satirical embodiment of the superficial young progressive. He parrots popular socialist phrases and preaches feminist and collectivist ideals, but his actions often contradict his words. His belief in progress, women's rights, and communal living is portrayed as shallow posturing, more about performance than conviction. Dostoevsky uses him to highlight how progressive thought, when divorced from empathy and self-awareness, can become empty ideology.
3. Luzhin vs. Lebezyatnikov
The conflict between Luzhin and Lebezyatnikov further underscores the contradictions in the progressive cause. Luzhin represents selfish conservatism cloaked in pseudo-philanthropy, while Lebezyatnikov represents idealistic but naive radicalism. Their confrontation in Marmeladov’s household reveals the flaws in both perspectives and Dostoevsky’s distrust of ideological extremes.
4. The Dangers of Revolutionary Thought
Dostoevsky suggests that some young progressives, in their zeal for social justice, are willing to destroy existing institutions without fully understanding the consequences. He was deeply wary of revolutionary socialism and saw it as potentially leading to moral relativism, coercion, and violence—an idea echoed in Raskolnikov’s belief that certain people can be sacrificed for the greater good.
exploration of people-pleasing tendencies
Dostoevsky highlights people-pleasing as a moral weakness; an unnecessary self-sacrifice that no one else asks for. A striking example of this is Raskolnikov’s sister Dunia. She chooses to marry someone she doesn’t love to help her family financially, and in a letter to Raskolnikov, she glorifies how much she believes he and his mother will benefit. Instead of being grateful for this, Raskolnikov sees through his sister’s words and reacts with anger and disgust; he’s upset that his sister is trading her dignity for his benefit and doesn’t accept her self-sacrifice. He doesn’t want the responsibility for his sister to be in this situation.
Dostoevsky’s criticism of self-sacrifice as a form of people-pleasing was highly relevant to me, a chronic people-pleaser. It highlighted how people-pleasing imposes burdens on others, directly subverting the initial subconscious aim of earning acceptance and approval from others. And other people can sense this! Which is why it never works out the way you imagine.
love and relationships
Many different relationships in the novel highlight Dostoevsky’s views on love and relationships.
The relationship between Dunia and Luzhin is essentially an “arranged” marriage that’s not centered on love but on mutual convenience. For Dunia, Luzhin’s wealth and status benefit her and her family. Luzhin, on the other hand, has a fantasy of rescuing someone “pure” and “innocent” like Dunia and having them wholly dependent on him, fully worshiping him, and giving him complete control over them. Dunia eventually recognizes Luzhin’s fantasy and ends the relationship, seeing that he doesn’t truly respect her but instead wants to degrade her. Eventually, Dunia enters into a relationship with Razumikhin who loves her sincerely with respect and humility. Dostoevsky highlights how contentment and relationship satisfaction and health differ when they are based on mutual respect and humility versus a projection of fantasies and the desire to control.
Raskolnikov has an interesting relationship with his family. Even though his mother and sister love him deeply, he maintains an emotional distance from them, finding the love overwheming and manipulative. And even though it was genuine, it was manipulative! Raskolnikov’s mom, even though she recognized the suffering her son experiencing, refused to ask him directly what was going on. Instead, she clung onto her delusional fantasy that her son was a genius; she was unwilling to see clearly. Raskolnikov could not bring himself to be honest with his mother; it would shatter her completely. She was already going insane by the end of the novel, unable to reconcile what she wanted to see with her subconscious understanding of the horrible actions her son had undertaken. I’ve already discussed above how Dunia has a people-pleasing relationship with Raskolnikov that he found burdensome. Through the dynamic of these three, I think Dostoevsky is highlighting the tragedy that can be found in codependent relationships without sufficient boundaries that are so common within families; even when there’s genuine love and affection, sometimes it can all get so warped and tangled that it fails to be the redemptive and life-affirming force that it has the potential to be.
Sonia has a very different relationship with her family. Her father is an alcoholic, squandering every penny their family earns, while her mother is mentally unstable. They are fully unable to care for Sonia’s younger siblings. In fact, Sonia’s mother constantly abuses all her children. To help provide for her family, Sonia, a young girl, turns to prostitution. She’s remains steadfast in her unconditional love for her family; she finds strength in suffering for others as a moral duty. Raskolnikov interrogates her moral strength when he asks her why she continues to degrade herself knowing that her money won’t move the needle for her family or cause them to change; he’s trying to understand how she can remain sane and steadfast in her condition to try to find a way out of his own inner torment. The answer lies in her unconditional love and her suffering for others without desire for any recognition. I think this is where Sonia’s self-sacrifice differs from Dunia’s; Dunia doesn’t hesitate to highlight her sacrifices for Raskolnikov and how she believes it will benefit him (demonstrating the truly self-serving nature of her behavior), while Sonia simply and humbly does what she can. This is the kind of unconditional love that heals.
Sonia and Raskolnikov’s relationship is a spiritual one, shown as the kind of relationship that can heal, redeem, and transform a person. Sonia is the first person that Raskolnikov confesses his crime to, and shockingly, her reaction was to recognize Raskolnikov’s suffering! She responds with compassion; she’s devastated for him, not at him. For me, it was the book’s most powerful moment.
“What have you done to yourself!” she cries, echoing the tragedy of a man who has lost his soul, not just taken a life.
“There is no one—no one in the whole world now so unhappy as you!”
She encourages him to confess his crime to the world as a ritual atonement to help cleanse his soul and ease his suffering, even offering to share in his burden with him. While Raskolnikov does eventually confess, he doesn’t immediately change. But Sonia stays patient and continues believing in his redemption, and in the epilogue, Raskolnikov’s heart finally opens, showing the power of their mutual love. Sonia holds Raskolnikov accountable without condemning him, judging him, or abandoning him. I view this as the highest ideal of any relationship, based on recognition of mutual suffering, self-awareness and confession to one another, and unconditional love.
The question I was left with is why does Sonia’s love heal Raskolnikov but not her parents, who ended up dying tragic and unceremonial deaths? I think the answer lies with confession, honesty, and truth-telling. Her father is too weak to change, fully wrapped in a cycle of guilt and addiction. Her mother is mentally unwell and too proud to see how her behavior is harming those around her. Dostoevsky intentionally highlighted they tragedy of Sonia’s parents to demonstrate that humble, unconditional love is only one piece of the picture; it takes confession and atonement to fully open the heart.
further notes
This is only the tip of the iceberg. For whoever wants a deeper dive, I transcribed my annotations in the book and added chapter summaries to make it easier to follow along. Well worth a skim if you’re interested in diving in!
Part One: Impoverished ex-student Raskolnikov wrestles with a growing theory about extraordinary individuals being above moral law, ultimately leading him to murder a pawnbroker as a test of his ideas.
Part Two: Raskolnikov becomes increasingly unstable and paranoid after the murder, oscillating between guilt and justification as he interacts with investigators and those around him, fearing discovery.
Part Three: Raskolnikov’s mental and emotional turmoil deepens as he confides in Sonya’s family, clashes with Porfiry, and becomes entangled in a web of suspicion, while his guilt continues to isolate and torment him.
Part Four: Raskolnikov's inner conflict intensifies as he grows closer to Sonya, evades mounting pressure from Porfiry’s psychological probing, and faces moral confrontation from Razumikhin and his sister Dunya, all while the noose of suspicion tightens around him.
Part Five: Tensions reach a breaking point as Raskolnikov confesses the murder to Sonya, Svidrigaïlov reveals his manipulative intentions toward Dunya, and the psychological pressure from Porfiry escalates, pushing Raskolnikov closer to a full confession.
Part Six and Epilogue: Raskolnikov is tormented by guilt and moral confusion, culminating in his failed attempt to justify his actions to Dunya and his eventual confession to the authorities, while in the Epilogue, he serves his sentence in Siberia where, through Sonya’s unwavering support, he begins a slow and painful journey toward spiritual redemption.
