When I first began thinking about Crime and Punishment I thought no way, the characters are all good or evil. There’s no in between to talk about. But Raskolnikov constantly has to deal with his internal turmoil. He is capable of murdering the pawnbroker but ends the novel in a completely different place.
The more I look at the novel, the more I think that the entire novel is Raskolnikov’s own struggle with the good and bad within himself. When he actually kills the pawnbroker he feels the guilt of the crime and it causes him to physically fall ill. One of the major ways that Raskolnikov deals with his darker thoughts is to almost “turn off” his emotions. I see this as a negative way to deal with turmoil because ultimately Raskolnikov’s repressed feelings boil over and, with some help, cause him to confess to the murder. He is only able to truly come to terms with the two sides of his personality once he allows himself to feel remorse for his actions and accept the consequences that come from them.
The other characters in Crime and Punishment generally are exaggerations of human characteristics personified. Because of this they don’t have to deal with the opposing side of their characteristic. Sonia, for example, never has to really deal with the darker side of her nature because she is so inherently good. Perhaps Svid may realize that he has done very little actual good besides giving away his money. Upon this realization Svid takes his own life instead of coming to terms with the two sides of human nature.
Because of it’s variety of characters, both good and bad, Crime and Punishment proves to be a very interesting novel for the study of the human condition.
