A New Interpretation of the Author Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky is commonly known as a Russian nationalist and Slavophile who absolutely defended the faith and values of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, after reading Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, I began to have significant doubts about whether these personas were truly his sincere convictions. Upon researching the author further, I learned that he was arrested for participating in a secret society pursuing Western utopian socialism and was sentenced to death; however, his sentence was commuted just before execution by an imperial pardon. Subsequently, he endured four years of forced labor in a Siberian prison camp, five years of compulsory military service, and even after completing all this, he lived his entire life under the surveillance of the Ministry of Internal Affairs' secret police. I also discovered that he received patronage from Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who was at the time the most extreme conservative, Slavophile, and a powerful figure in Russia. Therefore, despite his public displays of strong support for the Russian Orthodox Church and Slavophilism, I have come to doubt his true sincerity. Below is my reinterpretation reflecting my impressions of the novels I have read.
In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov represents the wandering Russian youth, Sonya represents the Russian Orthodox Church, and Svidrigailov represents Western capitalism.
Fundamentally, this interpretation is not particularly special. Such perspectives have been quite common in interpreting Dostoevsky's novels. However, the difference between that interpretation and mine lies in this question: should this relationship be viewed through a binary structure of good versus evil, or not? From a traditional perspective, Svidrigailov is interpreted as a villain who has completely lost his humanity, serving as a mirror that shows the darkest side of the protagonist, Raskolnikov. But my interpretation is completely different. In my view, the true villain in this novel is the protagonist, Raskolnikov. Not only does he commit extreme crimes while lost in a sense of superiority that ignores reality, but he is also a massive burden to those around him. Furthermore, while he may be seen in some parts as a compassionate person with a good heart, I take the position that this is not goodness in the true sense, but rather something based on a misguided sense of superiority.
Additionally, what is shown through Sonya is that the devotion and noble values pursued by the Russian Orthodox Church are actually meaningless to the poor who face threats to their livelihood due to a lack of money; it implies that economic problems must be resolved first. In the novel, the villain Svidrigailov commits suicide but leaves his money to his young fiancée and Sonya. Svidrigailov had also provided some economic assistance to Sonya's siblings previously, which makes me question whether Svidrigailov is truly the "extreme evil" that existing critics claim. Most of what makes Svidrigailov seem loathsome are not facts within the novel, but merely rumors spread through the mouth of another villain, Luzhin, who enjoys lying and plotting; in reality, Svidrigailov presented a different stance. While it is impossible to know exactly which side holds the truth, as a result of Svidrigailov—who, even in his decision to commit suicide, did not act impulsively but meticulously took care of the poor—Sonya was able to quit her life as a prostitute, follow Raskolnikov to Siberia to support him, and become an angel of salvation for him. For more on this, please refer to the link to my previous post.
https://mlbpark.donga.com/mp/b.php?p=1&b=bullpen&id=202609160118730019&select=&query=&shop=&subselect=&subquery=&user=&site=&reply=&source=&pos=&sig=hgjXHltY63aRKfX2hda9Rg-gKmlq
The linked post is primarily a reinterpretation of Svidrigailov; if you interpret Svidrigailov as Western capitalism, you will find it much easier to connect it to this text. Therefore, I believe my perspective is not a simple good-versus-evil structure, but rather a message that to solve the problems Russia faced at the time, economic issues had to be resolved, and to achieve this, Western advanced civilization, institutions, and ideologies also had to be accepted, integrated, and reformed.
In The Brothers Karamazov, Father Fyodor represents the Russian Emperor, the three brothers represent a divided Russia, and Smerdyakov represents the nihilism and anarchism that were popular at the time.
I am of the opinion that Father Fyodor, who is obsessed with money and women while being indifferent to—or almost neglecting—the upbringing and growth of his children, actually represents Imperial Russia and the Emperor. Because of this, Russian youth lost their direction and became divided into various ideologies, which I believe is represented by the distinct personalities of the three Karamazov brothers. Dmitry, who is faithful to desire and instinct; Ivan, who is cold yet intellectual and rational; and Alyosha, who appears good but cannot break away from existing values. Conversely, the illegitimate son Smerdyakov is seen as symbolizing the nihilism and anarchism popular among Russian youth at the time. Furthermore, I have significant doubts regarding the traditional interpretation that Smerdyakov is the murderer who killed Fyodor; I believe it was either Dmitry who was the murderer or that it was an open ending capable of various interpretations. I have previously raised new interpretations and hypotheses regarding this on MPK, so I will provide reference links.
https://mlbpark.donga.com/mp/b.php?p=1&b=bullpen&id=202609130118666590&select=&query=&shop=&subselect=&subquery=&user=&site=&reply=&source=&pos=&sig=hgjXGg-gjh9RKfX2hda9Rg-gKmlq
https://mlbpark.donga.com/mp/b.php?p=1&b=bullpen&id=202609150118706256&select=&query=&shop=&subselect=&subquery=&user=&site=&reply=&source=&pos=&sig=hgjXGg-gg3HRKfX2hda9Rg-gKmlq
Simply put, my interpretation is that he foresaw, or somewhat prophesied, a future where the Russian autocracy (Father Fyodor) would be destroyed by a popular revolution (the eldest son Dmitry or the illegitimate son Smerdyakov), leading to the death of the Emperor. This completely overturns the traditional interpretation of Dostoevsky as a devout believer and a thorough Slavophile. According to my interpretation, Dostoevsky was revealing a critical view that Russian society at the time was full of contradictions, and that unless economic problems were solved, even the noble values pursued by the Russian Orthodox Church would be meaningless, ultimately leading to the collapse of the Russian autocracy. Many who value Tolstoy more highly than Dostoevsky believe that while Tolstoy practiced egalitarianism despite his aristocratic status and had strong reformist tendencies, Dostoevsky's philosophy and thought failed to transcend their limits by conforming to Russian conservatism and Slavophilism. However, my thoughts are entirely different. While Tolstoy was someone who could live his whole life without worrying about money, Dostoevsky was someone who endured extreme poverty at the bottom, survived life-threatening situations, and had to live his entire life under surveillance. Moreover, his books describe the tragedies of the Russian people more thoroughly than anyone else; in reality, he was an individual who expressed the pain and tragedy of the system at that time better than anyone.