Apologia

Truly great stories transcend time and place. The best works, the "classics" if you will, last throughout the ages and defy irrelevance with subject matter relatable to future audiences. How is this accomplished? A deep understanding of human nature. Certain aspects of cultures fade in time, and certain others remain unaltered for ages. The mediocre writer, who seeks instant gratification, appeals to his contemporary audience alone. For the same reason articles become dated rather quickly, his works become irrelevant due to his lack of sagacity with regards to mankind. The great writer, on the other hand, knows what traits (the humanest of traits) will not change, due to human nature. Themes like love, greed, despair, failure, philosophy, loathing and hatred, regret, psychological torment, grief, and suffering never become dated due to the unchanging ways of humanity. The best stories, even though written with eloquence and intricacy, should be able to be explained to even the greatest of dunces. This is because the great writer, although possibly appealing to those of higher education, still writes about subject matter relatable to all. This is what makes Fyodor Dostoevsky a "great" writer, and Crime and Punishment a classic novel.

Dostoevsky's "Mature" (Toutonghi,Pauls) period of writing (post-imprisonment) yielded some of his finest works, such as The Idiot, The Brothers Karamazov, and Crime and Punishment. During this time, Dostoevsky remained mostly secluded from the rest of society and took up the pen. This lasted about fourteen years. In this time, Dostoevsky spent a great deal of time thinking. While educated as a military engineer in college, Dostoevsky used his knowledge of humanities (which can be acquired, to a degree, through observation and day-to-day encounters). His practical understanding of the thoughts and feelings of his fellow man allowed him to write with a timeless quality. Unlike many authors, Dostoevsky was able to see past the fleeting culutural fads and look deeper into what makes people behave the way they do. Write according to this, and you will have written a timeless classic.

In the novel, there are a great many examples of these "timeless" qualities that make the novel so transcendent of 1866 Tsarist Russia. The characters are designed to epitomize qualities in the human condition in such a blatant sense that readers of any generation can relate them to their day and age. For example: there is Razumikhin; the loyal and outgoing friend figure. He could be considered Raskolnikov's 'best' friend and foil of sorts, although Raskolnikov frequently demonstrates very little patience for his friend and seldom returns the many favours Razumikhin bestows upon him. However, Razumikhin remains optimistic, equating Raskolnikov's short temper and frequent unpleasantness to his situation, even advocating for his innocence in the murder. He takes just about as much offence to Porfiry's accusations as Raskolnikov himself does, wondering

where are its roots hidden? If you knew how furious I was! What, just because a poor student, crippled by poverty and hypochondria, on the verge of a cruel illness and delirium, which may already have begun in him (note that!), insecure, vain, conscious of his worth, who for six months has sat in his corner seeing no one, in rags, in boots without soles, is standing there in front of some local cops, suffering their abuse; and here there's an unexpected debt shoved in his nose, an overdue promissory note...rancid paint, thirty degrees Reaumur, a stifling atmosphere, a crowd of people, a story about the murder of a person he'd visited the day before- and all this on an empty stomach! How could anyone not faint! And to base everything on that! Devil take it! I know it's annoying , but in your place, Rodka, I'd burst out laughing in their faces; or, better - I'd spit in their mugs, and lay it on thick, and deal out a couple whacks all around - wisely, as it should always be done - and that would be the end of it. Spit on them! Cheer up! For shame! (Dostoevsky 268-269)

He seems to greatly empathize with Raskolnikov, and his unwavering loyalty is a timeless character trait that can and will be observed throughout the ages. There is also Sonya, who epitomizes lost innocence and gentleness (as well as being a religious fanatic of sorts). There is Katerina Ivanova; who is a prime example of the tragic fall from nobility and health to madness, poverty, and malady (which would eventually overcome her). There is Porfiry Petrovich, an irritating, insincere and antagonistic figure in the novel. Such polar character profiles as these seem unrealistic, but one must keep in mind how they were conceived. Dostoevsky, having little to no education in the humanities, observed "characters" in his day to day life, and based the novel's characters around them. Or, in some cases, took a trait they possessed a great deal of and based an entire character around it, such as Sonya's innocence or Luzhin's vile thoughts and vindictive, gossiping ways. There is also, of course, the protagonist Raskolnikov; a hypochondriac (likely due to his incredible paranoia, lack of consistent meals and appalling living conditions) and sullen recluse. It is thought that the character of Raskolnikov is based on Dostoevsky himself. With a little background knowledge of Dostoevsky's circumstances, it is known that Dostoevsky's father was a domineering and irritable physicist, rumoured to have been murdered by his own serfs (peasant servants. In that time period, they were not uncommon) for these very reasons. "The difficulties in Dostoevsky's life...are likely the genesis of most, if not all of his work (Toutghi, Pauls). These "difficult facts" include the highly polarized personalities in the author's life. These characters were created based on the finer points of human nature, rather than fleeting cultural movements. For this reason, the story will stand the test of time, be told and retold, and speak to audiences then, now, and in the future.

One may think that with all the misery of the novel, how has it remained a 'classic' for so long? There is a certain facet of the human condition that seems to crave tragedy."To be a human being among human beings, and remain one forever, no matter what misfortunes befall, not to become depressed, and not to falter--this is what life is, herein lies its task." (The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Pevear and Volokhonsky, xii). It can even be noticed at the Academy Awards; why do comedies never win Oscars? Are the critics all sullen melancholics who thrive on weeping before the screen? Not likely. The reason tragedies win awards is because it takes a masterful writer to expertly craft the empathy and character development needed to rivet the hearts of the audience to the hearts of the characters. When tragedy strikes, the audience themselves feel stricken, thanks to the incredible empathy they feel. In tragedies, the audience shares a more meaningful connection with the characters on the screen or the page. One can learn a great deal about a character (and humanity in general) from watching them showcase their true emotions, and witnessing their tragic circumstances. We may not laugh...but we understand. We are made to understand. Not only do we learn something about the characters, we learn something about ourselves. This is the other great success of the tragedy. Tragedy teaches us things about ourselves, about humanity in general. We can learn from the actions that take place on the stage, screen, or page. Like a children's fable, there is always a lesson (or 'moral', as it were) to be taken away; outside the theatre, or the library, and into the audience's hearts and minds. One leaves changed, their life enriched with this newfound knowledge. They see the world through different eyes. While it is not recommended that one sit their children down to watch Schindler's list (or to readCrime and Punishment) in order to teach them 'morals', these works (among countless others) offer valuable knowledge. What is the author's purpose, their lesson, their 'moral', if you will? Is it to warn against the consequences of absolute power, of tyranny, as Orwell teaches? Is it to teach the value of trust and forgiveness, as Shakespeare attempted in The Winter's Tale? In this case, (part of the reason Crime and Punishment is a classic), The themes of punishment, suffering and despair are predominant. Dostoevsky shows us how fleeting and superficial affluence is; as his was. Raskolnikov's studies, and soon-to-be law career "sitting in the professor's chair" (Dostoevsky 33) came crashing down around him when he was unable to finance himself. He slipped away, further and further from his goal, until he was left wallowing in despair, poverty and utter misery. Katerina Ivanova's noble upbringing did not prepare her for her husband - who became a drunk, and eventually died in the street, leaving her sick and dying with no money. Her downfall is probably the most pathetic (in the proper sense of the word; pitiful, pathos-inducing) and tragic of them all, with her resorting to forcing her children to dance in the street for spare change. Out of some tragic mercy, she dies, bleeding from the mouth, in arms of her stepsister and Raskolnikov. With regards to Raskolnikov's famous crime, the novel illustrates that left alone after one mistake; with one sorrowful regret and one's own thoughts (especially for someone as intelligent as Raskolnikov) one will be driven mad. Also, the bitterness and hatred Raskolnikov harboured prior to the murder (as a result of his miserable circumstances and the spite he felt for the "louse" [Dostoevsky 416] of an old pawnbroker he killed). Upon reading the final words, the completion of the epilogue, one feels the most for Raskolnikov. Through his hatred, his violence, his impatience, his sullenness, his seeming impossibility to empathize with, when he sees his love for the last time, knowing that for at least 8 years he will not see her again. Raskolnikov, however, is uncertain he will ever see her again, as Dostoevsky must have felt as he was led to execution (until he was suddenly pardoned). We leave the library, the classroom, or wherever we have chosen to embark on this journey with Raskolnikov et. al. knowing more about humanity than we did beforehand. We know the lowest, vilest darknesses of human nature. We have seen the tragic fall from greatness, the sorrowful regret, the ultimate sorrow. And the final, noble, alleviation of guilt through honesty. Though Raskolnikov regrets his confession, believing he will never achieve greatness (to the calibre of a world leader, anyways) because he "did not endure his first steps" (Dostoevsky 544) as these men did; the reader feels a sense of calm, morality, and a sort of wisdom acquired only through learning from classics such as Crime and Punishment.


Here and now, 145 years after its publication, Crime and Punishment still affects the reader. It still has something to offer, to teach the world about themselves. Nietzsche called him "The only philosopher from whom I have anything to learn". Like Nietzsche, we all have something to learn from Dostoevsky's craft. He possessed the gift of foresight and sagacity, as well as a deep knowledge of how humans work. As long as the paper is available to print copies of Crime and Punishment, there will be readers prepared to learn from it; to receive its message, its brilliance. This is why Crime and Punishment is a classic novel, and, as long as human nature remains, it will remain so indefinitely.