Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime And Punishment Analysis

Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment explores the ambiguous nature of such deceptively univocal subjects as what defines law and what constitutes an offenses against it. Thorough his analysis into crime ㅡthrough the lense of its many subjective definitionsㅡ the author aptly examines the many intricacies and relationships between statutory, social, personal and moral law. Dostoevsky's method of examination blurs the objective meaning of ‘crime’ as the concept becomes apparently layered and varied ㅡjust as the reader’s the understanding and perception of law. Insofar as the concept of ‘crime’ is concerned, Dostoevsky’s clever application of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Übermensch Theory, the creeds of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the …show more content…
Rodia ㅡquite ironicallyㅡ vents a great deal against the superiority complex of Luzin and the perceived exploitation of his sister, Dounia. The protagonist is outraged at the obvious manipulation Luzin and the ethical crime of, what Rodia perceives as, his sisters imminent indentured servitude to Luzin and his wealth. The author explores how marriage, specifically Dounia’s to Luzin, can be seen as moral crimes in itself if the motive is socio-economic rather than for love. Rodia perceives the marriage as “a sacrifice of [Dounia] to save [him]” and compares her engagement to the biblical “hard climb to Golgotha” ㅡGolgotha being the location of Jesus Christ’s Crucifixion (39). Outraged, Rodia describes how the temptation to be a martyr is a temptation nonetheless and drives Dostoevsky’s point home that the marriage is a violation of personal principle rather than one of societal norm. Rodia is again used as an instrument of Dostoyevsky when he crusades against other interpreted moral failures, such as Svidrigailov’s marriage to the 15 year old girl. He protests that the old man’s exploitation of the young children makes him a pedophile and accuses him of great violations of ethical doctrine; to Rodia’s horror, however, the time and culture was accepting of this fact and permitted this. After Svidrigailov grotesquely joked that “[he] loved children”, Rodia condemns him for the affair and exclaims that “the monstrous age difference rouses [Svidrigailov’s] lust” (458). Rodia’s condemnation of the scenario acts to cement the violation of moral law that is, the statutorily legal, marriage of Svidrigailov to what is essentially a child. In this way, the author triumphs in illustrating the great