Pause & Post #4:Nature vs. Nurture in Classic Literature

I realize I've already talked about a them in Crime and Punishment, and within the whole book, there are many themes. I've discovered the overall them of the book, and I think it's important, so I chose to write about it. 

In the previous post, I asked if because Rasnolikov was a good man, did it make him bad because he was capable of bad things. This... This is the underlying theme in Crime and Punishment, what makes a person good? What makes them bad? And then to go further, why are they good, or why are they bad? It comes down to the nature vs nurture debate in the social sciences. Were people born they way they become, or is how they become because of the environment they grew up in?

This debate interests me greatly, and I love that I can compare it to this piece of literature.

Like I've said in previous posts, Raskolnikov lives in Russia, in serious poverty, there's a possibility  he grew up that way as well. 

I have read, the more poverty there is, the more likely there is to be crime. This is proven twice in this novel: when Raskolnikov murders Alyona Ivanova and when Marmeladov gets run over by the carriage. This would indicate the nurture side of the debate is true. 
All of these aspects of the novel (theme, point of view, character and etc) are what make his piece of literature. Talking about things that will never become outdated, or readers won't like to or will stop reading about. Something like point of view is what keeps the readers interested, why they keep reading. The themes like poverty, the nature vs nurture debate, and characters like Rasknolikov and more controversial characters like Luhzin, add to the point of view- they make up the story. All of those things combined makes a timeless story- something that will never get old. Possibly just modernized as time goes on, but will always be relevant.