Harper 1

Mason Harper

Period 5

2/16/11

Salvation in a Crime

A man’s conscience is his only defense against his own mind. There is an ever-constant

war within us that rages over what is right, what is wrong, and what either of those two words

really means. For some, this battle is a matter of life and death. Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime

and Punishment, tells the story of a man whose skewed logic and natural conscience fight for

superiority in his life, and how this internal feud affects the people around him. This man,

Rodion Romanych Raskolnikov, commits a murder for some unknown reason, and proceeds to

torture himself in an attempt to understand the nature of his crime, one which even he does not

fully understand. It is said that Dostoevsky’s life and the times in which he lived had an

enormous impact on Crime and Punishment, and it is possible to directly correlate factors

between the two. Many critics have presented their views on this connection, as well as the

philosophy Dostoevsky presents in the novel. Crime and Punishment is simply an observation of

human nature under the oppression of reason, crime, conscience, and God. Many major

experiences in the life of Fyodor Dostoevsky, including his time in exile, the radical politics of

nineteenth century Russia, and his acquired faith in Christianity and God, helped form the

philosophy he presents in Crime and Punishment. Critics have also commented on how his

unique writing style and personal ideologies influence Raskolnikov’s theory on human nature

and the “justifiable criminal”.

The book Crime and Punishment is packed with events and ideas that may be directly

linked with events in the life of its author. Many major influences in Dostoevsky’s life,
 Harper 2

including a turbulent early family life, intriguing crimes he encountered, his own life in St.

Petersburg, Russia, and most importantly, his years in Siberian exile, found their way into the

story of Rodion Raskolnikov and his quest for divine moral justification. The idea of exploring

crime on a psychological level began forming years before Dostoevsky started his book. Leonid

Grossman describes such events in his biography of the writer: “At the end of 1860, when he was

preparing material for the first issue of Vremya, he read a number of books about criminal trials

in France, looking for thrilling accounts of famous crimes to stimulate readers’ interest in future

issues. He was struck by an article on the Lacenaire trial, and the second issue of Vremya carried

a detailed account of that notorious courtroom drama”(Grossman 344). This Lacenaire case

involved a young French aristocrat who had murdered a politician’s nephew, and instead of

taking his imprisonment as a sobering lesson, he seemed to get it into his head that his crime

made him some sort of societal elite. The direct similarities between this case and Raskolnikov’s

ideology are quite clear. One of the numerous possible motives we are presented with for

Raskolnikov’s crime includes one in which he expresses his desire to become a “Napoleon” of

sorts, as Dostoevsky often put it. Raskolnikov theorized that there is a select group of men who

are above the common rabble; men who have the right, and indeed, the duty to kill and sin in

order to bring progress to the world. “Dostoevsky’s interest was aroused by the psychological

contrasts of this philosopher-cum-criminal, thinker-cum-murderer, which were he felt excellent

novel material”(Grossman 345). It is here that we may find the inspiration, if not the very model

for Raskolnikov.

The setting for Crime and Punishment is a small section of St. Petersburg, Russia, an area

that was well known to Dostoevsky during his own life in the city. Raskolnikov spends many

hours wandering the streets of the Haymarket, a large square that was constantly bustling with
 Harper 3

vendors and shopkeepers, dominated by the Church of the Assumption, and an area that

Dostoevsky himself often wandered about absentmindedly, according to Robert Payne’s

biography (202). In this respect, Dostoevsky seems to have reflected some of his Petersburg life

into his character, Raskolnikov. He also seems to have put some of his disdain for the

uncomfortable city into him as well. “It was terribly hot out, and moreover it was close,

crowded; lime, scaffolding, bricks, dust everywhere, and that special summer stench known so

well to every Petersburger who cannot afford to rent a summer house-all at once these things

unpleasantly shook the young man’s already overwrought nerves” (Dostoevsky 4). Payne goes

on to explain how Dostoevsky seemed to base all the setting of the novel on the real Petersburg.

He was known to point out exactly which buildings in real life were the ones in the story (Payne

203). This close connection between the fictional and real worlds, is another example of how

Dostoevsky used much of his own life as a basis for Raskolnikov’s.

Dostoevsky’s connection to Raskolnikov also includes similarities in political and

religious views. Perhaps the greatest influence on Crime and Punishment was his experiences in

the Russian gulags of Siberia. Stanley Kunitz tells how in the late 1840’s, Dostoevsky joined an

“intellectual circle,” that often discussed the benefits of utopian socialism. He came under

suspicion and was arrested in 1849. He was held for eight months in St. Petersburg awaiting

trial, and was eventually sentenced to death. While practically standing under the hangman’s

noose, he was miraculously saved, and instead sent to a hard labor camp in Omsk, Siberia. He

spent 8 years in prison, and was finally set free in 1857 (234). “Dostoevsky’s life among the

outcasts in prison gave him a new insight into human nature. He was astonished by the integrity

of the inner world and the case-hardened will-power of the murderers who surrounded him. He

wrote of a convict named Orlov: ‘It was evident that this man had absolute control over himself,
 Harper 4

that he felt contempt for all torture and punishment, and feared nothing in the whole world. We

regarded him as the incarnation of infinite energy’”(Grossman 342). Dostoevsky obviously was

greatly moved by his experiences in the Omsk prison, and it seems that this is where he first

formulated the ideas that he expressed through Crime and Punishment. Even here, in this line

describing a fellow convict, foreshadowing can be seen of his theory for a moral superman. “In

short, I deduce that all, not only great men, but even those who are a tiny bit off the beaten track-

that is, who are a tiny bit capable of saying something new-by their very nature cannot fail to be

criminals-more or less, to be sure” (Dostoevsky 260). And we have reason to believe that

Dostoevsky was indeed planning a novel while in prison. He wrote a letter to his brother soon

after he was released from prison: “Don’t you remember I talked to you about a confession – a

novel that I wanted to write when all had been finished, saying that I would still have a lot to live

through. Well, in fact I’ve definitely decided to write it now without delay….It’ll be, first of all,

effective, passionate; and secondly, all my heart and soul will be put into this novel. I thought of

it when serving my sentence, lying on a bed of wooden planks, in an oppressing moment of

melancholy and self-dissolution…. The Confession will advance my name once and for

all”(Mochulsky 271). It can be fairly assumed that Dostoevsky originally meant the story to be

in the form of Raskolnikov’s confession. But the story underwent a number of changes

apparently, as the author’s focus seemed to shift from one topic to another. Konstantin

Mochulsky describes that Dostoevsky had, at one point, almost all of the novel written, and

proceeded to burn it all because he was not satisfied with it and wanted to start again with a new

plan (275). But there is no doubt that most of the inspiration for the book was borne of his time

in exile. “It was there that for the first time he encountered ‘strong personalities’ standing

beyond the moral law; here that he began to ‘reevaluate his norm of values’”(Mochulsky 272).
 Harper 5

In short, it seems Dostoevsky underwent a period of time in which he seriously thought about the

ideas that drove Raskolnikov to murder, and the ideas that brought him salvation in exile.

Dostoevsky’s imprisonment and exile was not just an isolated incident, but rather an

event that perfectly displayed the challenging political and religious ideologies being embraced

at that time. Through Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky made clear to Russian society his

views on this new radical generation of the 1860’s. Russia had long been dominated by a

careless tsarist government, and an almost extreme devotion to the Russian Orthodox

Christianity. But as Stanley Kunitz points out, the presence of Western influence brought rise to

groups exploring the ideas of utopian socialism and rational nihilism, consisting mainly of the

young intellectual generation (234). Dostoevsky represents this changing political atmosphere

through a character named Andrei Semyonovich: “He subscribed himself to progress and “our

young generations” out of passion. He was one of that numerous and diverse legion of

vulgarians, feeble miscreates, half-taught petty tyrants who make a point of instantly latching on

to the most fashionable current idea, only to vulgarize it at once, to make an instant caricature of

everything they themselves serve, sometimes quite sincerely” (Dostoevsky 365). It was these

ideas that defined the mid-1800s in Russia, and led to Dostoevsky’s arrest. But it was not so

much a belief in these ideals that influenced Crime and Punishment, but rather a disbelief in

them. Life in exile changed Dostoevsky in more ways than one. “Dostoevsky returned from

Siberia a changed man. His momentary interest in Fourierism had been completely replaced by

an interest in Slavophilism - favoring an ‘orthodox popular democracy within the framework of a

monarchy’; he had also become profoundly devoted to the Church”(Kunitz 234). Slavophilism

is the support of the Slavic cultures and denial of Western influence, and Fourierism is a

philosophy that supports the transformation of society in the form of self-sufficient “phalanges”,
 Harper 6

as they’re called; similar, in fact, to the commune system. These are among the ideas that

Dostoevsky left behind after his exile. This dramatic shift to conservative beliefs is proof of

Dostoevsky’s spiritual rebirth while in prison. It appears that after being given the chance to

observe crime and its causes up close and on a personal level, he was able to draw his own

conclusions about the new ideas which were challenging Russia’s old ways; and apparently, he

found great folly in them. Konstantin Mochulsky explains in his book how Raskolnikov is an

“individual of the new generation,” sincerely tempted by the humanitarian claims of a skewed

utilitarian morality (274). “If such a person ‘is thoroughly disconcerted’ by the influence of

nihilistic ideas, then one can appreciate how corrosive these ideas were, how ‘infirm’ were the

‘notions’ that pervaded the sixties. Dostoevsky in his novel set about unmasking this blatant lie

of ‘humane utilitarianism’ and showing that the ‘economic principle’ does not lead to universal

prosperity, but rather to mutual annihilation” (Mochulsky 274,275). Through Raskolnikov,

Dostoevsky presents a model of his own journey from a naïve young man, to a mentally mature

author/philosopher who has experienced true hardship, and, in his case, has found God. His time

in exile (during which, we are told by Kunitz, the Bible was the only thing he was allowed to

read [234]), awakened a faith in religion and the power of God to provide salvation, that

Dostoevsky had never known. By the end of the novel, Raskolnikov realizes his salvation in the

form of Sonya, the spiritually pure and religiously devoted prostitute, with whom he falls in love

and from whom he learns the salvation of accepting suffering in the face of God. His faith is

shown in perhaps a single moment that occurs on his way to the police station to confess: “He

suddenly remembered Sonya’s words: ‘Go to the crossroads, bow down to people, kiss the earth,

because you have sinned before it as well, and say aloud to the whole world: ‘I am a

murderer!’’”(Dostoevsky 525). Dostoevsky was to remain devoted to his faith for the rest of his
 Harper 7

life, and the nature of this faith was to act as the subject of many of his most influential works.

“Much of his work was concerned with demolishing the pretensions of the scientific, rational

humanitarianism of the nineteenth century and with justifying the necessity of faith and of God

as conditions of true freedom”(Encyclopedia of Philosophy 411). He was not devout in the sense

that he blindly believed in God and his omnipotence, but rather challenged it in any way he

could, and simply found the power of God to hold true through all opposition.

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s style of writing is part of what makes his novels so intriguing. His

unorthodox approach to writing allowed him to take apparently simple subjects, and turn them

into intricate analyses of the human mind and all its complexities. In the case of Crime and

Punishment, he takes an otherwise normal story of murder and investigation, and changes it into

a psychological observation of a murderer’s conscience and the mental war that wages within

him as a result of his crime. This novel is considered one of Dostoevsky’s best in terms of its

analytical clarity and focus, unique structure, and its frighteningly rapid pace and timing.

For the entire century-and-a-half that it’s been in publication, Crime and Punishment has

been, perhaps, Dostoevsky’s most popular and most widely-read novel. Some critics, including

Philip Rahv, think this is due in part to the fact that C&P is simply easier for the casual reader to

get through (Wellek 16). Rahv explains in his criticism of the book that Dostoevsky provides a

much clearer, or perhaps, a much more focused presentation of theme in this story, than in most

of his other works (16). “Free of distractions of theme and idea, and with no confusing excess or

over-ingenuity in the manipulation of the plot, such as vitiates the design of A Raw Youth and

reduces the impact of The Idiot, Crime and Punishment is the one novel of Dostoevsky’s in

which his powerful appeal to our intellectual interests is most directly and naturally linked to the

action”(Wellek 16). Now it must be understood that this cannot be mistaken for the
 Harper 8

simplification of his theme. If anything, the intense focus on just the one idea allows the author

to delve much deeper into his analysis. On top of that, Dostoevsky’s thematic focus could also

be seen as a representation of Raskolnikov’s obsession with his crime. From the very day after

his crime, Raskolnikov cannot seem to get it out of his head that everything in his life is evidence

against him, evidence that would surely prove his guilt if it was ever found by the police. “The

conviction that everything, even memory, even simple reasoning-power was abandoning him,

began to torment him unbearably. ‘What, can it be starting already, can the reckoning come so

soon? See, see-there it is!’ Indeed, the shreds of fringe he had cut off his trousers were simply

lying on the floor, in the middle of the room, for the first comer to see! ‘What can be wrong with

me!’ he cried out again, like a lost man”(Dostoevsky 90). Raskolnikov’s life is consumed by his

crime, just as Dostoevsky’s storytelling is completely focused on the central idea of the

Napoleonic plan and the limitations of man’s freedom.

It is, in fact, this ability which Dostoevsky utilizes, to write the story in such close

conjunction with the character’s feelings, that gives the book such an authentic feel to its

observation of human nature and conscience. Dostoevsky wrote the story in a very unique form,

consisting of six parts, the first of which recounts the murder. In most novels, such a crime

would very likely be a major climax in the book; and although it is a climax to part one of Crime

and Punishment, it is only the very beginning of the story as a whole. But as odd as it may seem,

Dostoevsky masterfully uses this structure to better examine the criminal after the crime has

been committed. Another way in which the novel may be divided, as Konstantin Mochulsky

points out, is in two parts: the first, being the examination of nihilist ideas, which were becoming

increasingly popular in Russia at the time; and the second being the examination of a nihilist

criminal’s restoration of faith and salvation (274). Yet another possible reason Dostoevsky may
 Harper 9

have had for the unorthodox structure, was his realization that a nihilist thinker who had decided

to commit a crime, probably would not think it through entirely before-hand, and would only

realize afterwards, the true consequences of his act.

One last unique feature in Dostoevsky’s style in this book, is the outrageous pace at

which the events unfold. So much seems to happen in the story, that the reader is often shocked

to learn that the entire ordeal occurs within a mere two week time-frame. One almost gets the

sense that things are happening too quickly, to the point where they are unrealistic. But this may

not be meant to be taken literally. “As the Russian critic K. Mochulsky has so aptly remarked,

its time is purely psychological, a function of human consciousness. Truly, Dostoevsky succeeds

here in converting time into a kind of progress of Raskolnikov’s mental state, which is not

actually a state but a process of incessant change eating into the future and expanding with the

duration it accumulates”(Wellek 17). In other words, Dostoevsky is trying to tell us that it

doesn’t matter how long it takes for these events to occur in reality; all that matters is how

Raskolnikov perceived the passing of time throughout his ordeal. For example, soon after the

murder, Raskolnikov falls into a terrible state of delirious sickness, and his sense of time is

distraught. “At times it seemed to him that he had been lying there for at least a month, at other

times that it was still the same day” (Dostoevsky 118). Raskolnikov is completely oblivious to

lengths of time during his sickness, and this symptom of his crime ends up maintaining itself

long after Raskolnikov recovers. “But about that-about that he forgot completely; instead he

remembered every minute having forgotten something that must not be forgotten-he agonized,

suffered, trying to remember, moaned, fell into a rage, or into terrible, unbearable fear”

(Dostoevsky 118). His perception of time is not based upon reality, but taken more in terms of

his crime and the events connected to it. This is proven when he makes comments such as ‘he
 Harper 10

remembers every minute,’ yet can’t tell if it has been a month or simply hours that he has lain

there. Time shows no significance to Raskolnikov throughout the entire novel, and Dostoevsky

manages to portray that to the reader by conveying the same feeling in the process of reading the

story. Philip Rahv points out the now obvious truth: “This effect is partly accomplished by the

exclusion from Raskolnikov’s consciousness of everything not directly pertaining to his

immediate situation. From beginning to end he is in a state of crisis from which there is no

diversion or escape either in memory or fantasy”(Wellek 18). This distortion of time proves how

Dostoevsky’s style contains impeccable continuity to it, as the theme of clarity and focus

discussed earlier plays a part in the idea that time is of little significance, as shown through the

fantastic pace in which Dostoevsky wrote the story. The ability to maintain this all-

encompassing method and structure of writing that expresses a theme completely independently

of what is actually written on the page, is just one of the reasons Dostoevsky is considered a

master of modern literature.

Crime and Punishment is, first and foremost, an account of a crime and its effects on the

criminal; but the ideas put forth by this novel reach into a much broader philosophical spectrum.

It is a story about human nature; what a man is born with, what he can gain, and what he

deserves in his life. Dostoevsky uses the novel to present his philosophy on the nature of men,

and the limitations of our freedom as human beings.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy argues that a central theme of all of Dostoevsky’s

novels, is the “problem of freedom” (411). “What is permitted and what is not permitted is a

question that Dostoyevsky dramatizes again and again, and one can regard the development of

his work as a dramatic testing of the limits of freedom and a progressive refinement of what he

meant by the concept of freedom” (“Dostoyevsky”411). There is no doubt that Crime and
 Harper 11

Punishment is one of Dostoevsky’s greatest examinations of this problem, as he presents the

situation of a criminal who is constantly at war with his conscience, with morality, and with an

idea he develops himself, often called the “Napoleonic plan”. After he murders the old

pawnbroker, Raskolnikov is haunted with the one question he can’t even seem to answer for

himself: what were his motives for committing this crime? He never definitively answers, and

indeed, Konstantin Mochulsky has concluded from the author’s notebooks, that Dostoevsky

himself was even tormented by this question and never came upon a conclusion (274). But one

of the most highly supported claims amongst critics is an idea of a “social Napoleon” that

Raskolnikov expresses throughout the story. There is a part in the book where Raskolnikov first

shares his philosophy: “I merely suggested that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right… that is, not

an official right, but his own right, to allow his conscience to… step over certain obstacles, and

then only in the event that the fulfillment of his idea- sometimes perhaps salutary for the whole

of mankind- calls for it” (Dostoevsky 259). And later in the conversation, his idea becomes

somewhat disturbing: “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- make note of that” (Dostoevsky

261). This is the idea of the existence of a man above moral law; one who can commit a crime,

commit murder perhaps, without worry of divine punishment. Mochulsky explains in his book

how Raskolnikov, with this theory, divides society into two groups: one consisting of the simple

majority who are born to be ruled by others, and another very select group that consists of men

who can commit crime for the sake of the betterment of mankind, and are born to rule others

(282). In later dialogue with another character, Sonya, Raskolnikov calls his societal superman a

“Napoleon of sorts.”
 Harper 12

Most people believe that Raskolnikov’s real motive lies somewhere within this theory he

developed. When he eventually confesses his crime to Sonya, in passionate desperation, he cries

out, “I wanted to find out then, and find out quickly, whether I was a louse like all the rest, or a

man? Would I be able to step over, or not! Would I dare to reach down and take, or not? Am I a

trembling creature, or do I have the right…” (Dostoevsky 419). Raskolnikov confesses finally,

that he was overcome with the temptation to see if he could possibly be one of the Napoleons of

his idea. That, some believe, was his motive for killing the old woman, which gave rise to the

term, the “Napoleonic plan.” But as Philip Rahv points out, Raskolnikov still cannot stick to one

motive for his crime, changing his explanation numerous times even within that conversation

with Sonya, and we are still left unsure of his real reason (Wellek 20). This goes back to the idea

presented by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Dostoevsky’s foremost theme, in all his works,

being concerned with the freedom of human nature. “Man, for Dostoevsky, is limited by society,

economic conditions, laws, history, the church, and especially by God. He is classified, defined,

and fixed by a hundred institutions and a thousand conditions. Man, however, does not want to

be defined and limited, he wants to be free and he wants to be totally free. According to

Dostoyevsky, he is right in wanting to be free for freedom is the essential attribute of his

identity” (“Dostoyevsky” 411). It goes on to explain that Dostoevsky did not believe that the

law of nature existed; that “there is no “reason” in Dostoevsky’s world, only reasoners” (412).

“Man is totally subjective and totally free” (“Dostoyevsky” 412). Dostoevsky’s basic

philosophy is that man has complete control over his own free will, and that there is no

preexisting force of nature that can influence him. This idea certainly would fall in line with

Raskolnikov’s story, as his fate was decided by his own relationship with God and with his own,

personal search for salvation. He was not forced to confess; God did not force him to turn
 Harper 13

himself in to the police. His confession was inevitably an act of his own free will, chosen only

after he searched for salvation through God, and found that it was the only way he could save

himself. As is typical of post-exile Dostoevsky, this story reflects a deep belief in the power of

God and religion, and the salvation it could provide. His unscrupulous examination of the role of

God in a man’s life was also a major philosophical focus of this book, as well as many of his

other great novels.

One critic named William Rowe, considers Dostoevsky’s characters to have very

distinctly child-like natures. He cites numerous passages from C&P in which Dostoevsky

describes them as “childlike”, and he correlates most of the intense emotions exhibited by these

characters with those that are common of small kids (174,175). Although he does bring up a

compelling point, Rowe fails to recognize fully what Dostoevsky was really trying to say by

having his characters emulate children. Knowing Dostoevsky’s take on free will, it could be said

that we are all, in fact, child-like in our choices of action; which, in effect, makes it not child-like

thought at all, but a common state of human emotion that we all share. The only reason we have

classified it as “child-like”, is that children are not able to mask such feelings and inclinations, in

the way that mature adults can. Dostoevsky was able to expose this truth only because he was

able to examine the natures of his characters on a far deeper psychological level than almost any

author before him.

But what makes this idea frightening, in a way, is the knowledge of what the term “child-

like” really means to most of us. When we say someone is acting “like a child”, we generally

mean that they are being stubborn, obnoxious, selfish, foolish, etc. It is not usually a

compliment. So the fact that Dostoevsky is implying that all mankind thinks in a “childish”

manner, is worrying. Coupled with his belief that man is in complete control of his own free
 Harper 14

will, and that his fate is whatever he makes it, the situation actually takes somewhat of a chaotic

turn. There is a reason we do not let kids take on too much responsibility: because they do not,

supposedly, possess the necessary mental and logical capabilities to maintain any amount of

responsibility. But if what Dostoevsky implies is true, then every day we are yielding power and

responsibility to those very same self-serving emotions, possessed by leaders in our society.

And who’s to say he’s wrong. All through history, endless suffering has resulted from

the weakness and corruptibility of leaders. Over the years, we have come to expect the

impossible from our leaders. We expect them to rule calmly, and coolly, and expertly, when in

fact, they are just human beings, like the rest of us; and human beings, as Dostoevsky tells us, are

always afflicted with emotion, both good, and bad. Men are not fit to be leaders, because we are

never without our selfish desires. There may not be such a thing as “human nature”, but there are

certain qualities which we all possess. As William Rowe so accurately described Dostoevsky’s

ideology, “Murder, murdered, and living sacrifice are all children before God. This is perhaps the

one hope common to all men: realizing the adult’s child’s potential first on earth and later, in

heaven” (Rowe 176). Dostoevsky probably didn’t actually believed in the so-intriguing idea of

“social Napoleons”, which he presented in Crime and Punishment; but rather, he presented this

idea, simply to destroy it, and use its falsehood to prove that for all our human selfishness and

self-aggrandizing emotions, we are all the same under God, and can all find salvation in him, if

we are willing to look for it.

The words “good” and “evil” don’t mean much anymore. There was once a time in

which a man had to make his own ethical decisions, weighing something against both his

conscience and reason, and try to find a good medium and decision as to what is right and what

is wrong. But we are no longer required to undergo such psychological torments because man
 Harper 15

his built up its world so that we grow up, learn what we need to know, and we are saved from the

stress of making our own. And, as a result, the lack of ethical exercising has put our moral

muscles in a state of atrophy. As can only be expected from this kind of neglect, we have now

begun to make illogical inquiries into the nature of right and wrong, and if anything, it has

brought us much more trouble than any amount of enlightenment. Raskolnikov is a perfect

example of a man biting off more than he can chew in the way of moral idealism. Raskolnikov,

like so many others, tried to test the limits of what was accepted in society; this forced him to

actually make a decision between his conscience, or his reason. He had to choose for himself,

whether his Napoleonic plan was good and true as his reason told him; or morally wrong as his

conscience told him. Such a decision, the magnitude of which most of us have never and will

never encounter in our lives, wholly consumed Raskolnikov’s life until he was someone

completely different from what he was before. But who can blame him, really? He, like so

many others, simply wanted to experience something new, make his own decisions as to what is

right and what is wrong and what his life was going to represent. And here we find what

Dostoevsky is all about. The culmination of his own life experiences, his writing style, his

personal philosophy, all result in the one idea: that man desires free will above all else, and truly

has that free will, but he is not psychologically, emotionally, or morally ready to wield it by

himself. Dostoevsky sees us all as children, unworthy of the responsibility of leading our own

lives, and therefore, we must hand that control over to someone, or something, else, which in his

mind, is God. Dostoevsky believes that the only way to salvation is through belief in God and

trust in his guidance. But one does not have to see Dostoevsky as the Christian fundamentalist

many might believe him to be. No, he was far too inquisitive and knowledgeable of human

nature, to devote himself heart and soul to a religion, especially one that feeds off blind faith in a
 Harper 16

single, all-powerful deity. It could be said that he puts his trust in God because he has seen what

a powerful faith in a forgiving ruler can do for people who constantly need guidance and

forgiveness. He realizes one main fact: Salvation is found through punishment of wrongdoing,

and punishment is the result of crime. So in a way, our sins, and more so, our repentance for

those sins, in the face of someone who we at least think cares, and can give us the feeling of

some sort of “official” divine forgiveness, is the gateway to salvation from ourselves and the

folly of our natures.