Thread by @Burnest137

In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky was not writing a crime novel in the modern sense. He was staging a moral experiment, almost a trial, asking a single, dangerous question… What happens if a human being believes they stands beyond moral law?

Dostoevsky is attacking the 19th century faith that human reason, detached from conscience, can replace moral truth. Raskolnikov’s crime is not merely murder, it is the attempt to think himself above humanity. Above the people around him

For Dostoevsky, reason can justify almost anything, yet the soul will not believe it. Raskolnikov discovers that guilt is not a social construct and conscience is not learned behavior. You can deny them intellectually, but you cannot escape them existentially. They are fatal

Raskolnikov is considered the great sufferer. They point to the fevered nights, the delirium, the guilt that gnaws at him until even the air feels accusatory. They see a man writhing under the weight of conscience and assume this is the worst fate imaginable. It is not

Raskolnikov suffers because he is still alive. His soul resists his lies. Every step away from truth tears at him and the agony proves essential, there is still a center. His suffering is violent because it is productive. It is the pain of a man being pulled back toward himself.

Svidrigailov, by contrast, hardly seems to suffer at all. He moves through life with ease, charm, and a peculiar lightness, as if nothing can truly touch him. He commits horrible acts that should shatter a human being, yet carries them as one might carry loose change.

There is no collapse, no storm of guilt
People mistake this for strength or freedom. Dostoevsky knows better Svidrigailov is not free, he is empty. Where Raskolnikov burns, Svidrigailov is nothing
Where Raskolnikov is tormented by conscience, Svidrigailov is tormented by the abyss

Raskolnikov’s suffering has direction. It presses him downward, yes, but downward toward confession, humility, and the possibility of renewal. His pain mean the moral law is still alive within him, even if it screams instead of whispers. He can still find reclamation

The wound is proof that something vital has been struck. Suffering here is not the enemy, it is proof that redemption remains possible. Svidrigailov’s condition offer no such hope. He does not wrestle with good and evil because nothing within him resists evil

Desire flickers and fades. Pleasure exhausts itself. Even fear fails to deepen into repentance. He is haunted not by guilt but by meaninglessness, and meaninglessness cannot be confessed away. There is no fire left to cauterize or cleanse. He is truly empty

His life eventually drifts toward nothing. This why Dostoevsky’s verdict is so severe and so quiet. Raskolnikov’s path is brutal, but it leads to redemption. Svidrigailov’s path is smooth, easy and it leads nowhere at all. People think suffering is agony, but agony can teach.

Raskolnikov is dragged toward life by pain. Svidrigailov slips into death by indifference. And if one must ask which man is more lost, Dostoevsky’s answer is unmistakable, not the one who suffers too much, but the one who feels nothing at all. The one who is nothing at all

@threadreaderapp unroll