Truley an idiot

[samah]

When I first read the novel I liked Prince Mishkin , I mean he is good nice person but after I had finished reading it I realized why Destovisky called his novel " THe IDIOT " not just because people were calling him that ,but also because Mishkin was truley an idiot he cant act at all especially in the social life and the way he treated Aglaia , I still dont understand why did he leave her for Anastacia?!

[mono]

As anyone would feel at their more peaceful moment while getting taken care of - all of his needs - thus did the Prince feel while under the care of his doctor in Switzerland. Much like a child, however, he felt the desire to wander off in the world, increasing his independency despite his naivete. In my opinion, for all of his choices, and one can notice that the Prince fell more and more apart psychologically as the book continued, the sudden exposure to spontaneity, chaos, and life in general corrupted his psyche and exacerbated his condition. Such seems the way of gaining an overwhelming amount of freedom after a former life of comfort and ease, while receiving treatment for his condition; even during the time of his treatment, though, the experience in which he does receive a great amount of exposure (such as when the Prince later describes an execution he witnessed), he remembers acutely and with horror.

[samah]

I understand your opinion about Prince Mishkin mono , but I still believe that if the character were a different person ,he would act differently under the same circumenstances and I noticed the changes that happend to the Prince as the story continued , and by the way I just want to ask you about another novel for Dostoevsky its name is " The Teenager " I guess but I'm not sure , I tried to read it but I found it too boaring , I'm just wondering if you have ever read it .

[chmpman]

I've never read the book, but this may be interesting: I believe the word "idiot" in Ancient Greek meant layperson or ordinary man. I could be wrong though.

[Asa Adams]

I soon hope to read this book...(I am hoping it will get chosen for the july book club!)

I hope Baz isn't reading this...he will only insult me... :mad: :lol:

[mono]

. . . and by the way I just want to ask you about another novel for Dostoevsky its name is " The Teenager " I guess but I'm not sure , I tried to read it but I found it too boaring , I'm just wondering if you have ever read it .
Oops, I apologize I did not see this question until now, samah.
Probably depending on the translation you read, I think The Teenager may also refer to The Adolescent, sometimes additionally called The Raw Youth. Unfortunately, I have not read this, among a few of Dostoevsky's other works; ideally, as I cannot get enough of Dostoevsky, I would love to someday read all of his works, but we will see what time provides. :D
Of his works, I have only read Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, and The Idiot; I recently, however, purchased Notes From The Underground and The Double, hoping to read those quite soon.

[bazarov]

I soon hope to read this book...(I am hoping it will get chosen for the july book club!)

I hope Baz isn't reading this...he will only insult me... :mad: :lol:
I've got you again :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: !!!!! Brothers!!! :lol: :lol:

[bazarov]

I've never read the book, but this may be interesting: I believe the word "idiot" in Ancient Greek meant layperson or ordinary man. I could be wrong though.
I think you are... :nod: Ordinary man in Idiot is Gavril Ardanlionovitch, Aglaya calls him like that. It's kind of person without his own ideas and minds, just listening others and taking their words for his. :brow:

[mono]

I've never read the book, but this may be interesting: I believe the word "idiot" in Ancient Greek meant layperson or ordinary man. I could be wrong though.I think you are... :nod: Ordinary man in Idiot is Gavril Ardanlionovitch, Aglaya calls him like that. It's kind of person without his own ideas and minds, just listening others and taking their words for his. :brow:
I wondered about this, too, so visited Dictionary.com/, which has a few etymology facts. Copied from there:

[Middle English, ignorant person, from Old French idiote, from Latin idita, from Greek idits, private person, layman, from idios, own, private. See s(w)e- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Asa Adams]

Ah, it would seem that Baz may be wrong... lol :lol:

[bazarov]

I understand your opinion about Prince Mishkin mono , but I still believe that if the character were a different person ,he would act differently under the same circumenstances and I noticed the changes that happend to the Prince as the story continued , and by the way I just want to ask you about another novel for Dostoevsky its name is " The Teenager " I guess but I'm not sure , I tried to read it but I found it too boaring , I'm just wondering if you have ever read it .
I've read it; and yes, Adolescent is better translation of its original, and it is a little bit boring, probably because of not very interesting main character Dolgoruky. He just can't get under your skin... :D

[bazarov]

Ah, it would seem that Baz may be wrong... lol :lol:
Thank you, BROTHER!! :lol: There are 2 persons: Idiot, a man with mental illness, known as Prince Mishkyn, and Gavril Ardanlionovitch, Aglaya calls him ordinary man. It's kind of person without his own ideas and minds, just listening others and taking their words for his own(Aglayas words). So it looks to me that these names doesn't represent same illness :lol: . But maybe I'm wrong because of translation, in my language idiot is man with some mental health problems. Having no ideas and minds looks like a social problem, not health problem...Maybe Asa could read it and solve are problems... :lol: Maybe next July :lol:

[Ionus]

I think this story is incredible. FD is quite frankly, the most insightful author I have ever read. The story of the prince, in regards to his relationship with Aglaya and Nasstassia, is difficult to understand, and I cannot presume to speak concisely about it, however, it seems to me that the Prince chose Nasstassia because, he seeks to be like Christ, he thinks he is obeying Christ, by having pity and understanding the deepest pain he sees. He seeks to take on the worst state a human being can undergo, and defeat it. He wants to rescue Nasstassia from the depths of hell that she is in, like Christ rescues humanity from the depths of hell. It is sad, and confusing at first when instead of sticking up for Aglaya, he sticks up for Nasstassia, even though it is she who is being the abuser. He sees this vengeful, and spiteful attitude as the direct cause of the extreme pain she must feel. It is this extreme pain, that he, the extreme believer of Goodness, is attracted to, like an antiobiotic to a virus. This is why he is said to be Christlike, though one cannot help but to notice the many imperfections of the Prince, and question whether FD really meant for him to represent Christ, or as Kolya reveals, some kind of self-centered dreamer. So far, I believe the Prince to be a burdened believer, who is so overwhelmed by his notions of Christ and goodness, that are so elevated, that he cannot possibly coordinate them with a tangible existence, or at least a worldly existence. He seeks the best of both worlds, naively, without realizing that he is doing so. In other words, he does not know how to translate Christ's message into a fallen world.

This story is so deep, I can hardly say anything precise about it, without thinking of another possibility. I would love to hear what others think though.

[linz]

When I first read the novel I liked Prince Mishkin , I mean he is good nice person but after I had finished reading it I realized why Destovisky called his novel " THe IDIOT " not just because people were calling him that ,but also because Mishkin was truley an idiot he cant act at all especially in the social life and the way he treated Aglaia , I still dont understand why did he leave her for Anastacia?!

I'm new here, hello. A couple years ago I read 'The Idiot' and I would have to say I disagree. I found it difficult to read because of the absolute superficiality of every character besides Prince Myshkin, I personally believe that the love tiangle, and the many other individual complication in the novel were merely for extentions sake and had little to do with the main theme, "mindless evils". The Prince was as a 'Christ-like' figure in the myst of a society plagued with material worship and depraved obssesions. That bit a about the 'toy dog thrown out the window of a train' made me laugh so hard I cried, and the 'Napolean bit'. The Prince was 'simple-hearted' not 'stupid'.

[WillieD]

it seems to me that the Prince chose Nasstassia because, he seeks to be like Christ, he thinks he is obeying Christ, by having pity and understanding the deepest pain he sees. He seeks to take on the worst state a human being can undergo, and defeat it. He wants to rescue Nasstassia from the depths of hell that she is in, like Christ rescues humanity from the depths of hell.

A couple of thoughts struck me - first, in one sense I think you have something there. But then the fact that he was immediately drawn to Nasstasya Fillipovna by just looking at her picture. Granted he said it was that she had endured so much suffering, and yet the attraction was more then mental. So I don't think you could say he made a decision to imitate Christ, but rather he was hopelessly sucked into the vortex around NF, even after wanting nothing to do with that Mad Woman.
Towards the end of the book, he is dreading her, seeing her in nightmares coming to him. He wants nothing to do with her - that is the conscious choice he has made. But when Aglaya's jealousy compels him interact with NF, he is unable to restrain himself and unable to deny the attachment he feels.
In reality - Aglaya could be said to be as much to blame for the relationship failing as the Prince (and thus to a degree, with the princes return to madness). If she had not demanded the showdown, they could married and NF would have left them alone, since she(NF) was for their marrying. She ran out on him when he needed her, the moment he was being sucked back into NF's vortex. If she had stayed a few moments longer she could have saved her prince from the Mad Woman. But she was too righteous for that. In essence, she abandonded her Prince to NF because she was too proud to accept that his heart could feel love for another woman. Or was she just protecting herself?

[Gladys]

If she had stayed a few moments longer she could have saved her prince from the Mad Woman. But she was too righteous for that. In essence, she abandoned her Prince to NF because she was too proud to accept that his heart could feel love for another woman. Or was she just protecting herself?

Had Aglaya 'stayed a few moments longer', the prince would not have acted differently, but Aglaya might have understood his compassionate dilemma.

Whether or not Aglaya was proud, she totally misconstrued the way in which ‘his heart could feel love for another woman’. The prince agreed to marriage with Nastasya Filippovna through compassion for two lost souls - for 'the mad woman' and murderous Rogozhin - even though he truly dreaded both of them. His motive was to save Nastasya Filippovna from despair and Rogozhin from anarchy. He was certainly not head over heals in love, with anyone, since the time he first saw her heart-rending picture on the train.

I am less clear on the character of Aglaya, but here also, the prince was driven by compassion in action: by works of love.

[WillieD]

Hi Gladys,
Some good points you had there. It was a few months back that I read the book - had to go over chapter 46 again to get my thoughts together. I think what I was getting at was Aglaya's inability to bear insult/endure emotional anquish with regard to the prince. This is the bit I was thinking of:

He could bear it no longer, and with a look of entreaty, mingled with reproach, he addressed Aglaya, pointing to Nastasia the while:

"How can you?" he murmured; "she is so unhappy."

But he had no time to say another word before. Aglaya's terrible look bereft him of speech. In that look was embodied so dreadful a suffering and so deadly a hatred, that he gave a cry and flew to her; but it was too late.

She could not hold out long enough even to witness his movement in her direction. She had hidden her face in her hands, cried once " Oh, my God!" and rushed out of the room. Rogojin followed her to undo the bolts of the door and let her out into the street.

So the prince was by no means betraying Aglaya - he still viewed N.F. as a mad woman, and as proof of his attachment to Aglaya he cries out when he sees her in pain and flies to her. But it was too late Dostoevskiy writes! Aglaya's noble position has been compromised - her love for the Prince is defeated by something, and I'm not sure what you would say that something is. Her overiding quest to be the most beautiful, the most beloved, her shining vision of adulation? I dont know - but she sure didn't have any qualms about slapping the prince around emotionally. You'd think she could endure a smidgen of grief emotionally for his sake. Then again, she is young and seems to have some deep fear that it is really N.F. that the Prince loves and not her. I guess they call that jealousy.
But I think, with a bit of distance from the details, you could say that the whole thing is about hopeless love. Roghozin and N.F. is obviously hopeless - N.F. and the Prince - I think she wasnt sane enough to be a loving or loveable wife. So that was hopeless. And Aglaya was too noble, or perhaps too self-concious to deaden her jealous fears. So that could never really have worked.
On the other hand - if Aglaya had loved the Prince enough - she would have stayed and endured reproach for his sake. And they could have all lived happily-ever-after (with her nagging him constantly just like her mother).
Now if you view the prince as a Christ figure... What does Aglaya represent? And her fleeing him in his moment of need...

[Gladys]

Aglaya's noble position has been compromised - her love for the Prince is defeated by something

Aglaya, if proud and jealous, seems intelligent, ardent and loyal. She deeply loves the prince, who did not and would not betray anyone. ‘Her love for the Prince is defeated’, could only have been defeated, by the awesome (almost divine) sacrifice the prince suddenly makes in the hope of saving Roghozin and Nastasya Filippovna from despair or worse. Can Aglaya, or indeed anybody, be expected to recognise selfless love of such magnitude?

Prince Myshkin’s self sacrifice, in committing to wed the dreaded, neurotic Nastasya Filippovna, is boundless. If her situation is ‘hopeless’, he clings to hope however slim. Faced with this paradox, Aglaya recoils in anguish. Understandably. No one can fathom an infinity of love, a seeming madness, so unexpected and misunderstood: all are offended! And like Christ facing crucifixion, all have fled. Worse still, the prince has saved no one; even for Aglaya, ‘it was too late’. So the madman, the idiot, is committed…and, in a sense, crucified. ‘Selfless Love’, personified in the prince, is crucified.

If ‘Aglaya had loved the Prince enough’ and stayed longer in the house of Nastasya Filippovna, the prince would have explained his motives to Aglaya but, his path ahead, fueled by compassion, would be unalterable. Even so, she may have gained enough strength to resist, later on, a disastrous Polish adventure.