May: Crime and Punishment

With all the exciting things going on lately, I haven't posted on my May reading yet. It proves increasingly difficult to adequately discuss my initial impressions of a book as time goes on and it is no longer as fresh in my mind and I've moved on to the next book. But regardless, here goes...

Most of May was spent reading Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. It is a rather hefty book but such a great read. Rich with philosophical and psychological dimensions, I was deeply engaged in the evolving psyche of the main character, Raskolnikov. Because the book is written in the third person omniscient, the aspects of psyche are made particularly profound.

What struck me most within this novel was Raskolnikov's consideration of ordinary people vs. the extraordinary people in society:

"In short, I argued that all people- not only the great, but even those who deviate only marginally from the common rut, that's to say who are only marginally capable of saying something new, are bound, by their very nature, to be criminals- to a greater or lesser degree, of course. Otherwise they would find it hard to get out of the rut, and it goes without saying that, again because of their nature, they could not possibly agree to remain in it, and indeed, in my view, they have a positive duty not to agree to remain in it.... That idea consists in the notion that, by the law of their nature, human beings in general may be divided into two categories: a lower one (that of the ordinary), that is to say raw material which serves exclusively to bring into being more like itself, and another group of people who possess a gift or a talent for saying something new, in their own milieu. There are within these categories infinite subdivisions, of course, but the distinguishing features of each are quite clearly marked: the people of the first category, the raw material, that is, are in general conservative by nature, sedate, live lives of obedience and like to be obeyed. In my view, they have a duty to be obedient, as that is their function, and there is really nothing about this that is degrading to them. The second category all break the law, are destroyers, or have a tendency that way, depending on their abilities. The crimes of these people are, of course, relative and multifarious; for the most part what they are demanding, in highly varied forms, is the destruction of the present reality in the name of one that is better." (Part III, Chapter V)

Raskolnikov's discussion goes on for a few pages but that particular portion really struck me and continues to linger in my thoughts. I've so often felt that distinction among members of society...not specifically in Raskolnikov's terms as "ordinary" and "criminal," but that general sense of those who obey and steadfastly (whether consciously or subconsciously) maintain the status quo and those who resist and challenge the status quo. Interestingly, it seems that the former group often suppresses the latter's efforts and truly do label them as "criminals." Hence, opposers of the war in Iraq get labeled as "anti-American." I've always felt like the criminal/extraordinary. And in saying that, I truly do not attempt to assert a superiority whatsoever. As Dostoyevsky articulates through Raskolnikov, in the nature of the ordinary, "there is really nothing about this that is degrading to them." There is a sense of duty in many of the "ordinary" members of society. I think religion does much to perpetuate the "ordinary" group and maintain the status quo. But that is a huge topic of discussion I will get into some other time.

Profound reading.