2 Comments
Jun 23Liked by Cams Campbell

To focus on the moral point: to me it's certainly not morally justifiable in any way. Not in 'real life' and not in the context of the story. And I have a feeling Dostojevski thinks so too. There are several places in the text where Dostojevski describes how Raskolnikov's mind is unclear and feverish or how he's unable to think straight. At the very end for example, where R thinks that 'at times his mind was almost darkened and he was hardly aware of his physical existence'. So maybe Dostojevski is saying that R doesn't act out of any true moral conviction. And of course there really is no good reason why he should kill the 'old' woman (she's my age 😄).

Expand full comment
author

I agree. I think the point is that R doesn't have the constitution to step over, which is what's making him ill. He also knows in himself that it's an immoral act and is in no way justifiable, so he has some redeeming qualities that a man such as Napoleon may not have had. But it's that void within him, that lack of meaning and purpose, that he's trying to fill with this act. He's looking in the wrong place.

Expand full comment