Describe a favorite literary character.

[Pompey Bum]

But Prince Myushkin *is* an idiot, unlike Rogozhin. I meant Rogozhin.

If I were to apply such a general adjective to a character, I would say Prince Myushkin is a good character, and in a way, all other non-idiots are non-idiots because they're missing something that he has, they're worse than him. However, IMO, his character is impractical, or mythical (pardon me my limited English vocabulary). For me, Rogozhin is the non-idiot that is not worse than the idiot. This, along with the fact that he is in the same setting that has the idiot and all the other unusual characters of the work, makes him one of my favorite characters.

Great suggestion, EE. Rogozhin is a complicated and well made character, and Myshkin, of course, is one of the great characters of literature. There seems to be a strong opposing duality to them. But if Myshkin (as most believe) is a Christ figure, then who does that make Rogozhin, the anti-Myshkin? The implications of that question make the final scene (where they are in the sack together) a shocking one. It's a great book.

The Idiot is also a sentimental favorite of mine because it was the subject of the first literary discussion I had on this site. I was new and everyone was ignoring me, but this really nice lady named Gladys decided to talk with me about Myshkin and Rogozhin. As I remember, Gladys thought Myshkin was a straight-out (that is, non-ironic) Christ figure, while I was pointing out that a lot of people near him end up get ting destroyed. She threw some proof texts at me and I threw some Pauline theology back at her. No one conceded. Gladys still pops in sometimes (though rarely), but she has never had much else to say to me. I've always hoped there were no hard feelings over the debate (it can be hard to tell sometimes). I really do appreciate her kindness to me when I was new.

Here is the thread if you are interested in reading it or even continuing the discussion. If not, don't worry about it. I just thought you might want to talk about Rogozhin. (The conversation with Gladys starts on page 2).

http://www.online-literature.com/for...42#post1273742

[Danik 2016]

Thanks for providing that interesting thread, PB, in fact I was hoping that a more recent reader of The Idiot than myself would chime in.
I have never read theology but what stands out for me about some of the greatest characters of Dostoyevski is there quest for a deeper meaning of what it means to be human. It´s a religion above religions, a goodness above conventional ethics or a moral far above moralities. I don´t know if I am using the right words, but whatever it is, it can´t be put in ortodox straightjackets. Maybe his most ambicious book in this sense is The Brother Karamazow, my favorite on.

[prendrelemick]

Molly Bloom from Ulysses is an amazing creation - or presentation. She's there throughout in Bloom's head and in converstions and comments from others (kind of early locker room talk.) Then she bursts out right at the end in one chapter-long single sentence, and shows she is so much more than we have been led to expect. She knows more, has experienced more and has more native understanding than all the other 'more educated' characters put together.
Or is Joyce saying everyone has their own remarkable internal persona that no one else can know.



Oops, just interrupted a "The Idiot" discussion (which I haven't read) My favourite Dostoevsky characters are Sonya's family in Crime and Punishment, simply because they don't keep their troubles behind their front door like we English, with our precious dignity, tend to do - nothing deeper than that. They have a kind of brash openness that I admire. Which probably says more about me than the book.

[Pompey Bum]

My favourite Dostoevsky characters are Sonya's family in Crime and Punishment, simply because they don't keep their troubles behind their front door like we English, with our precious dignity, tend to do - nothing deeper than that. They have a kind of brash openness that I admire. Which probably says more about me than the book.

One of the peculiar things about Dostoyevsky is the way his characters are so rational and contemplative in inner dialogues, but In groups they just go nuts on each other. Such pyrotechnics also happen in The Brothers K and especially in The Idiot's parties from hell. Maybe it's a Russian thing.

Speaking of Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is a great character, though not especially likable (I didn't like him anyway). But he is immensely believable as an angry and clueless 20-something. Dostoyevsky's genius is to take his his vividness and make it insane beyond what one could normally understand. That's what gives the novel its punch. It's horrible to be there when the ladies die, but it is just so believable.

[Danik 2016]

Molly Bloom from Ulysses is an amazing creation - or presentation. She's there throughout in Bloom's head and in converstions and comments from others (kind of early locker room talk.) Then she bursts out right at the end in one chapter-long single sentence, and shows she is so much more than we have been led to expect. She knows more, has experienced more and has more native understanding than all the other 'more educated' characters put together.
Or is Joyce saying everyone has their own remarkable internal persona that no one else can know.



Oops, just interrupted a "The Idiot" discussion (which I haven't read) My favourite Dostoevsky characters are Sonya's family in Crime and Punishment, simply because they don't keep their troubles behind their front door like we English, with our precious dignity, tend to do - nothing deeper than that. They have a kind of brash openness that I admire. Which probably says more about me than the book.

I also like Molly Bloom. I didn´t read the novel(if I ever do I´ll consider it a special feat) but I was promptly attracted to that intense last chapter.
I also like Sonya`s family as a group (and there is her father, Marmeladow) and Sonya herself.
And it seems that Dostoyevski was much influenced by Dickens in his portrayal of urban characters. In an earlier novel, Humiliated and Insulted, he criates his own "Little Nell",setting her in the harsh Russian context of adolescent prostituition.

[prendrelemick]

The Marmeladows remind me of the Darbyfields, (Tess of the D'urbervilles) and Sonya is like Tess. not sure which came first.

I think it is time I read some more Dostoyevsky. I could never make up my mind about Raskolnikov - which I am sure was what Dostoyevsky was after. I could not get past the pointless brutal murders he committed as an interllectual exercise for many chapters afterwards.
There was a film called "The Rope" with James Stewart where something similar happened, but there the murderers were arrogant and unlikeable, whereas Raskolnikov is mostly a decent chap. However as James Stewart points out the moment you opt to commit murder you fail the test of being an outstanding human being.

[El Entenado]

Great suggestion, EE. Rogozhin is a complicated and well made character, and Myshkin, of course, is one of the great characters of literature. There seems to be a strong opposing duality to them. But if Myshkin (as most believe) is a Christ figure, then who does that make Rogozhin, the anti-Myshkin? The implications of that question make the final scene (where they are in the sack together) a shocking one. It's a great book.

The Idiot is also a sentimental favorite of mine because it was the subject of the first literary discussion I had on this site. I was new and everyone was ignoring me, but this really nice lady named Gladys decided to talk with me about Myshkin and Rogozhin. As I remember, Gladys thought Myshkin was a straight-out (that is, non-ironic) Christ figure, while I was pointing out that a lot of people near him end up get ting destroyed. She threw some proof texts at me and I threw some Pauline theology back at her. No one conceded. Gladys still pops in sometimes (though rarely), but she has never had much else to say to me. I've always hoped there were no hard feelings over the debate (it can be hard to tell sometimes). I really do appreciate her kindness to me when I was new.

Here is the thread if you are interested in reading it or even continuing the discussion. If not, don't worry about it. I just thought you might want to talk about Rogozhin. (The conversation with Gladys starts on page 2).

http://www.online-literature.com/for...42#post1273742

Thanks for the link. Being trapped in a story of Kafka right now, I really appreciate finding so much information about something I'm interested in, condensed in one place.

I'm no educated man on literature and analysis of text, but I just wanted to voice what I thought about the book when I was reading it. Please bear with it. I'm too lazy to put "what came to my mind is" before each following sentence that I write, but you can assume it's there.

Myushkin is said to be a Christ figure. He is, in a way, the perfect man. One who has neither hatred nor vengeance. I will refer to him as the idiot, you may as well read that as Christ or The Perfect Man. What I never understood is Rogozhin being considered to be antagonist of the story. If anything, he is part of the "protagonist". The idiot can't exist without Rogozhin. Not in the sense that darkness is impossible without light, but rather in the sense that there is no saltwater without, well, salt and water.

Rogozhin was based on a criminal, if I'm not mistaken. In The Idiot, the narrator analyses the characters by their inherent characteristics, put out of context. The book is set in an inverted world on the whole, idiocy turns into elegance, eloquence turns into superficiality, and desire turns into hypocrisy.

Rogozhin is the unhappy child of the era. He is the one who loves what the idiot pities and others abuse. He drops his chains and jewels, and goes to any lengths to do the bidding of the loved/pitied/abused. Even though, as we read in the magnificent final act of the book, he can't manage the last and ultimate request of the loved/pitied/abused without the help of the idiot.

--

I figure that my views may be radically different from what's accepted and understood about the work, and, to be honest, I have no meta-information about Dosyovesky, as I've only read his books. However I really wanted to share what I think about the work and see what you think about it.

[Danik 2016]

The Marmeladows remind me of the Darbyfields, (Tess of the D'urbervilles) and Sonya is like Tess. not sure which came first.

I think it is time I read some more Dostoyevsky. I could never make up my mind about Raskolnikov - which I am sure was what Dostoyevsky was after. I could not get past the pointless brutal murders he committed as an interllectual exercise for many chapters afterwards.
There was a film called "The Rope" with James Stewart where something similar happened, but there the murderers were arrogant and unlikeable, whereas Raskolnikov is mostly a decent chap. However as James Stewart points out the moment you opt to commit murder you fail the test of being an outstanding human being.

I looked them up:
Crime and Punishment-1866
Tess-1891
Both families are large and destitute, the head of the family is a drunkard and in both cases the girls have to support their families. Sonya has to work as a prostitute and Tess is seduced by the false cousin. Both are strong women.
Raskolnikov might have been a decent chap at the outset but lack of money and to much brooding turn him into a criminal. But Dostoievsky devises for him an end of repentance, redemption and a life with Sonya.
Hardy is more pessimistic. Alex is Tess´hubris, who prevents her to be happy with her (stone) Angel, until she finally kills him (Alex) and is sentenced to death for it.

[prendrelemick]

I think - or thought at the time I read it many years ago, that Roskolnikov was having a mental crisis or breakdown of some type that he eventually gets over with the help of sonya. I suspect this is a huge over simplification born of my desire to have an explanation. I suppose he "represents" some thing or other integral to mankind.

I started reading "The Idiot" last night by the way.

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks for the link. Being trapped in a story of Kafka right now, I really appreciate finding so much information about something I'm interested in, condensed in one place. I'm no educated man on literature and analysis of text, but I just wanted to voice what I thought about the book when I was reading it. Please bear with it. I'm too lazy to put "what came to my mind is" before each following sentence that I write, but you can assume it's there.

Oh, you are welcome. And this is just a site for readers who want to talk about what they read. Your voice is as valid as anyone else's.

Myushkin is said to be a Christ figure. He is, in a way, the perfect man. One who has neither hatred nor vengeance. I will refer to him as the idiot, you may as well read that as Christ or The Perfect Man.

Well, I don't think Myshkin is meant to be Jesus on a symbolic level. And The Idiot certainly isn't a retelling of the Gospel. It's more like speculative literature: what would happen if a man of Christ-like compassion and perfect innocence and humility were to appear in (what was for Dostoyevsky) today's world? What would people think of him? How would he interact with the world? Who would he be drawn to and how would they react to him? Would his mission be a successful one? So Isee Myshkin as a kind of a Christ figure even if he is not exactly a symbol. He also follows the Russian Orthodox tradition of the divine fool. And as I am writing this, it occurs to me that he may even be related to the kind of world-rejecting/world-rejected hyper-consciousness Dostoyevsky talks about in Notes From the Underground. Maybe that was Myshkin's problem. Maybe he was Jesus Christ as the Underground Man. But nicer.

What I never understood is Rogozhin being considered to be antagonist of the story. If anything, he is part of the "protagonist". The idiot can't exist without Rogozhin. Not in the sense that darkness is impossible without light, but rather in the sense that there is no saltwater without, well, salt and water.

They are an opposed duality. Myshkin's pure and spiritual love for Nastassya (I believe it is more than pity) implies the existence of Rogozhin's passionate and possessive love for her. But I think it is more like the darkness and light in your example. Here is saltwater, but if there was not also freshwater, saltwater and freshwater would not even be categories. Everything would just be water. But as it is, salt water and fresh water constitute two sides of the same coin--an opposed duality. The shocking thing about The Idiot is that by the last scene, the Christ-Satan/Myshkin-Rogozhin duality looks awfully chummy. I don't want to say more because Prendrelemick is still reading the book, but I think talk about it with Gladys in the link I gave above.

[Danik 2016]

I think - or thought at the time I read it many years ago, that Roskolnikov was having a mental crisis or breakdown of some type that he eventually gets over with the help of sonya. I suspect this is a huge over simplification born of my desire to have an explanation. I suppose he "represents" some thing or other integral to mankind.

I started reading "The Idiot" last night by the way.

I don´t think it is a simplification, it is viewing the characters from another perspective.
If you come to think of it most of Dostoiyevskis great characters are having "a mental crisis or breakdown of some type" or are on the brink of it. Ironically his own illness enabled him
to create these unforgetable psychologically over refined characters which seem to transit perpetually between heaven and hell. They also are, in my opinion, one of the last forcefully instance of a 19C sensibility.
I once tried to imagine Dostoievsky characters at a breakfast table saying common place things like: "Can you pass me the butter please"?. It somehow would not work.
I think you will enjoy The Idiot. I think it is one of it´s greatest.
There is also a great Kurosava film on it. It is sow emphatic that one forgets that the director and the actors are Japanese and not Russian.

[prendrelemick]

Yes, I am enjoying The Idiot a great deal. Sometimes I think we spend too much time searching for meaning and symbols in a book and forget to enjoy it. The Idiot is a great read, funny, accessible -a real pleasure. Dostoyevski is a great advocate of "show don't tell". One thing I have noticed is that so far the women seem to have a monopoly on intellegence and insight. So far the prince has been a device to open everyone up for our inspection, but I think he is about to take on a role of his own.

[Danik 2016]

So far as I remember he lives more the lives of others than his own, as you observed. He gets deeply entangled with the people he meets. He is a sort of catalyst.

[Clopin]

Yes, I am enjoying The Idiot a great deal. Sometimes I think we spend too much time searching for meaning and symbols in a book and forget to enjoy it. The Idiot is a great read, funny, accessible -a real pleasure. Dostoyevski is a great advocate of "show don't tell". One thing I have noticed is that so far the women seem to have a monopoly on intellegence and insight. So far the prince has been a device to open everyone up for our inspection, but I think he is about to take on a role of his own.

Dostoyevsky's women, in general, usually seem a cut above the men. His male protagonists tend to be struggling with alignment issues and often act very erratically, to put it mildly, as a result. Raskolnikov's sister Dunya, for example, is just as intelligent and accurate a thinker as he is, but she gets there without the double murder and extreme overemphasis on self... reflection? Of course Dosto himself was a pretty impatient and erratic guy (while his wife Anna was, to my knowledge, calm and reasonable), so it's probably something of a self-insert on his part.

One of the peculiar things about Dostoyevsky is the way his characters are so rational and contemplative in inner dialogues, but In groups they just go nuts on each other. Such pyrotechnics also happen in The Brothers K and especially in The Idiot's parties from hell. Maybe it's a Russian thing.

haha, that's always how I considered it.

[Pompey Bum]

Dostoyevsky's women, in general, usually seem a cut above the men. His male protagonists tend to be struggling with alignment issues and often act very erratically, to put it mildly, as a result. Raskolnikov's sister Dunya, for example, is just as intelligent and accurate a thinker as he is, but she gets there without the double murder and extreme overemphasis on self... reflection? Of course Dosto himself was a pretty impatient and erratic guy (while his wife Anna was, to my knowledge, calm and reasonable), so it's probably something of a self-insert on his part.

It's a great point about Raskolnikov's sister. She embodies all the strong and positive aspects of him. Their mother mentions a strong physical resemblance, and Razumihin tells her that she and her brother have highly similar personalities. She takes charge of her own life (as when she rejects Luzhin's snares), and she is tough in a crisis (as when Svidrigailov tries to rape her). You don't hear much about Dounia as a proto-feminist character, but I think she is a very modern woman.

Obviously that's not the case for all Dostoyevsky's women. Sonia is strong in her own way, but she is constantly described as confused or overwhelmed in the face of crises. I suppose you could say she was tenacious, especially in the epilogue, but how realistic was her loyalty (especially since Svidrigailov had already pulled her out of prostitution)? Sonia reminded me a little too much of a Dickens virgin (she even has a sylphic body like Little Dorrit); but at least Dostoyevsky had the realism to make Sonia a prostitute. God knows what she would have been in a Dickens novel--maybe a flower girl or a rag peddler. I only see Sonia as (a little) unrealistic as Raskolnikov's girlfriend. On the other hand, Dounia marries Razumihin, who is a little too convenient a male character (cheerfully industrious, willing to sacrifice, loyal to people he doesn't know all that well). So maybe Dostoyevsky could only handle one entirely realistic partner per relationship. That would still be one more than Dickens was usually able to manage.