Printable View
Ok, i have reached page 270 out of almost 600 pages of The Idiot (Wordsworth edition) and personally i find this book bit boring, which i think quite shocking my self. There are too many characters in the book and there are some insignificant intermezzos in the story as well.
Compared to Crime and Punishment and Notes from the Underground, i find the Idiot is a little bit overrated
Cheers,
Sub
Idiots are usually boring! :D
excuse me?
Completely disagree. This book is a masterpiece and it's not about "boring" from the first up to the last page.
Hi Qwinto...welcome...
O yes, do challenge my arguments, cause actually I really want to finish this book. Plese give your further comments to counter mine
Well...
If you're in trouble with a lot of characters, then you should just keep in mind that author's main idea was probably to show detailed relationships between this mysterious human mind of main character with the people of commoness. Note that only women understand him a bit. Others just try to use him. That's a genious idea of writer to artificially divide our soul into parts and demonstrate how bad ones use others.
I will think more and maybe give some simpler comments but what I've said now is what I remember "first of all" about this book.
Congrats on making it to page 270. I put it down on page 265. It was just too slow.
Wow..so you think I'm luckier cause im 5 pages ahead of you..and FYI all, i will postpone this book until undecided period of time..i find it's more useful to read other books in my reading list..
I recently finished "The Idiot" and I plan on finishing up Dostoevsky. I'm reading "The Brothers Karamzov" right now.
As per "The Idiot", it's one of those books that you need to finish to appreciate.
The Idiot isnt a 'plot-driven' novel, and I can understand why some people might view the novel to be a tad bit tedious. However, I think to judge the novel soley on that criteria is to miss its point. In my opinion, Dostoevsky wrote that novel as a social comment; i.e. mainly to satire the disposition of people. I absolutely enjoyed the book, and indeed it is one of my favourites. Maybe you should trying reading the novel from a differnt viewpoint...Anyway, hope you eventually finish reading it:)
Thanks Molko and welcome :wave:. Ok, I'll try to read and finish it.
Sometimes, reading certain literature is like mining for gold in a
mountain of ore. The ore looks like a boring and ponderous mountain
of soil. Digging through the ore only becomes attractive to us when
we have seen a hint or glint of gold. We must first understand what
gold is, and then we must have faith that it is there to be discovered.
Once we see what it is that we truly want, then the labor of digging
through all that seemingly commonplace becomes attractive to us,
even exhilarating in our anticipation of every nugget that we uncover.
But what if we could just read someone’s essay or study notes and have
all those nuggets and pearls laid out before us? Would we appreciate
them as much as if we had found them ourselves? Would we be
motivated to return to the book and read it through ourselves to
appreciate the pearls in the context of their original setting?
Conversely, had we read the book through on our own, without aid of
essay or critique, would we necessarily have spotted and understood
all that is in the work?
I once saw an exhibit of the Romanov Collection. I saw a huge, long
necklace of enormous, perfectly matched, natural pearls. The plaque
explained that during the entire lifetime of a single diver, he might be
fortunate to find only four such pearls. This necklace contained
something like 48 pearls. The necklace symbolized the lifetime and
suffering of twelve or more divers. Each novel is like that necklace in
a way, is it not? Each novel conceals the pearls of many lives, and
much labor and suffering.
Our English words "cosmetic" and "cosmic" are related to the single
ancient Greek word, "Kosmos," which can mean "adornment" or it can
also mean "world." There is a world in a word. We must only be
properly equipped and trained and exercised to enter into that world.
In Chapter 7, verse 7 of the Bhagavad-Gita ("Song of God"), God says
to Arjuna, "There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna.. All
these many universes are strung upon Me, as clusters of pearls on a
thread."
The word "thread" is "sutra" from which we get the medical word
"suture," which closes wounds, as well a the thread of a line of
thought or conversation at a message board. I suppose one might
even mention "string theory" in physics as it now strives for a "grand
theory of everything."
As I browse through my copy of the Bhagavad-Gita, a translation by
Winthrop Sargeant, I see a footnote in chapter 7 citing Ramanuja, an
Indian theologian of the middle ages: "God has two natures, a lower
and a higher one. The lower nature is comprised of the "stuff",
"things", "noumena" of this physical world which conscious beings
experience and with which they interact. The higher nature of God is
constituted by the "noetic" activity of those conscious beings
themselves.
So, our mountain of soil and ore is the "stuff," the "noumena" of the
physical world. But the "noetic" activity of us, the readers, is what
brings that spiritual world, that higher nature, into existence. "Noetic"
is a wonderful word which comes from the ancient Greek word "nous,"
meaning "mind."
Early Christian theologians speak of the angelic hosts as the "bodiless
noetic" beings.
============================================
Here are some excerpts from sparknotes which caught my eye.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/themes.html
What happens when the ideal human being comes into the real
world? In Dostoevsky's view, the ideal man does not bring good, but
rather his own goodness is inverted and manipulated, leading to the
destruction of both himself and his ideal. The world that Prince
Myshkin enters is one of moral corruption and decay, with money as
the object of principal importance. In this world, money not only
makes one a better human being (Ganya, for example, believes it can
cure his mediocrity), but it can also obtain one a beautiful bride (the
various men bid for Nastassya Filippovna). No one deems Prince
Myshkin a good husband for Aglaya, while nearly everyone considers
Ptitsyn—an emblem of mediocrity who has enriched himself through
usury—la most respectable match. Beautiful, intelligent women such
as Nastassya Filippovna, are dishonored and consequently destroyed.
Though Myshkin is infinitely morally superior to the world he enters,
his effect on this world is ultimately zero—a mix of positive and
negative. Though Myshkin attempts to help those around him, he
drives several of them—General Ivolgin, Nastassya Filippovna,
Aglaya—to destruction. The failure of Myshkin's compassion to save
those about whom he cares most, especially Nastassya Filippovna,
drives him to insanity.
Prince Myshkin is a Christ figure, though Dostoevsky adds what he
believes to be a Russian element to this messiah. Myshkin describes
religion as an immensely strong feeling similar to the joy God feels for
his creation—a feeling he recognizes when he sees a young mother
joyously nursing her baby. Much like the idea that religion is a feeling
rather than a set of rules that one follows, Myshkin Christ-like
character can also be reduced to a feeling: his immense compassion
and love for others.
Pervading the novel is a sort of spiritual beauty to the character of
Prince Myshkin and to the love he displays toward all the other
characters. Indeed, such beauty is an enigma because it is a feeling
and, therefore, impossible to define. Significantly, by the end of The
Idiot, all the examples of beauty in the novel, including Nastassya
Filippovna, Aglaya, and Myshkin, are ruined.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/quotes.html
"Full of pure love and always true To his one exquisite dream,
N.F.B.—these letters he drew In blood upon his shield."
In Part II, Chapter 7, Aglaya Yepanchin recites Pushkin's poem "The
Poor Knight" in front of her family, Myshkin, and a few other people.
The poem is about a medieval knight who dedicates his love to the
vision of perfect beauty, Mother Mary. He fights in her name and
finally, dies, alone and insane, in his castle. Aglaya suggests that
Myshkin is very much like the poor knight, except that the prince's
ideal is Nastassya Filippovna and not Mother Mary. Therefore, Aglaya
exchanges the initials A.M.D. (Ave Mater Dei) for N.F.B.—Nastassya
Filippovna Barashkov. Aglaya begins reciting the poem in a mocking
tone, but soon her tone changes to a serious one. Later, she tells the
prince that in reading the poem she was attempting to show him that
she understood his feelings for Nastassya Filippovna. The poem
invites us to consider how well the model of the "poor knight" fits the
character of the prince. Perhaps Aglaya has come close to guessing
the essence of Myshkin's character. In reality, however, she has not
entirely succeeded. The prince is idealistic, but his ideal is his selfless
love for others, not merely Nastassya Filippovna. Myshkin's
relationship toward Nastassya Filippovna is merely an expression of
that ideal. In addition, unlike the knight who fights the Muslims with
his ideal expressly in mind, the prince is not consciously aware of his
ideal. He lives it in his every word and action because he feels it,
because it is at the core of his being.
"I don't understand how one can walk by a tree and not be happy at
the sight of it! Or to speak with a man and not be happy in loving him?
There are so many things at every step so beautiful."
During the engagement party at the Yepanchins' in Part IV, Chapter 7,
Prince Myshkin speaks about his feelings on life and religion. He
expresses his infinite joy of seeing the products of nature, namely the
earth and men. He loves these examples of God's creation and he
delights in their ultimate beauty. In addition to characterizing the
prince in his love for nature and humanity, this quotation emphasizes
Dostoevsky's exploration of beauty. In his compassion toward others
and his humble joy, which he derives from people and from love,
Myshkin exemplifies spiritual beauty. Hippolite mentions that the
prince once told him that he believes that beauty can save the world.
Indeed, if more people performed such beautiful actions as helping a
friend or forgiving an enemy, perhaps the world could be cured of its
corruption. By attempting to create Myshkin as a truly beautiful
individual, Dostoevsky gives us an ideal that can serve as an example
for the kinds of feelings and actions that can combat the moral
corruption of the world and ultimately make it a better place.
Dostoevsky was the first novelist who seems successful in exploring the inner world; his novels are therefore, mostly called psychological. He is a master in depicting the complex mental activities of his characters. As the thought system of the man is orderless, Dostoevsky's novels, in consequece, lack plot (in other words, they lack pattern). There is a very little acttion in his novels. This makes them boring for those readers who are curious only about "what would happen next?"
Idiot is one of Dostoevsky's most profound psychological novels. It's a journey of inner world. Action is very little, which leads to a story which is latent not manisfest. Therefore, the reader should not read this novel with the curiosity of "what would happen next". I suggest friends to read this novel with a profound interest in the activities and complexities of the inner world, otherwise you would be killing your time. And when successful in finishing Idiot with some gain, try Joyce's Ulysses.