My Reading of The Idiot and Prince Myshkin
I think I know how this book was meant to be read ie. Prince Myshkin is apparently good.
Dostoyevsky himself states his intention in creating this character.
At times, I do feel this --but at other places in the novel, the text has had the opposite effect on me. It's like I'm inverting/subverting the original intention of the author (unless he was just being ironic).
I know that Nietzche was influenced by Dostoyevsky, and whatever the way the intellectual influence flowed, there seems to me to be some themes that the two thinkers are working on.
Let's start with an idea which supports the contention that Prince Myshkin represents love and goodness. When Prince Myshkin responds to people as they are in the moment, he does not categorize them into "good" or "evil". He merely responds to them as they are. He does not dismiss the unruly crew that barge in on his party to demand payment--he deals with them respectfully. He does not seem to be concerned with social norms or conventional classifications--and in this way he is truly Christ like. And he is living the way Christ described in the story of the Good Samaritan ie. doing what he is moved to do, not what he thinks would be profitable (materially or morally). He is simply not making these types of judgements.
Well, we can definitely learn a lot from that approach! How many wars, interpersonal or international arise from judgements and classifications of people's actions! And yet, judgements and classifications are how we make sense of our world--or perhaps it is the way of thinking that accompanies the entire spirit of these "last centuries" (think back to Lebedev's speech about railways and the positivist/materialist non spiritual approach which grows parallel to industrialisation). Is Dostoyevsky pointing his finger at the folly of the very underpinnings of the thought emergent at that time? If so, then we are the inheritors of that thought today--caught in the endless categorisations of us/the other, good/bad and positive/negative etc.
Nietzche's thoughts on love were similar to this, ie. that which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil and that since "good" and "evil" are unnatural categories, instead we should value that which is life giving and condemn that which is life denying.
Now, if we invert this back onto ourselves--we have to question why we, as the reader are determined to create classifications of good=Prince Myshkin and bad=Rogozhin!
And if we are going to use this approach, then we need to seriously question whether Prince Myshkin had a life giving or a life denying effect on those around him.
And judging from the fate of them, Prince Myshkin inadvertently had a life denying effect. Although he tries to help characters like General Ivolgin, Natasya Filipovna and Aglaya, he drives them to destruction!
In this way, he reminds me of Gregers Werle in Henrik Ibsen's The Wild Duck. Gregers is idealistic and is determined to bring truth and enlightenment to the shadows and dark places. His efforts bring about the destruction of a formerly functional little family and the death of a little girl.
While he lacks the striving characteristic of Gregers Werle, he still has a destructive effect on these characters. Why?
General Ivolgin--In this case he listens to General Ivolgin and doesn't challenge him on his version of his story. He effectively gives General Ivolgin enough rope to strangle himself with his own lies. His inability to challenge General Ivolgin leads General Ivolgin to feel absolute and irrevocable shame, from which there is no return.
Wouldn't there have been a kinder response?
Nietzche refers to the necessity of acting destructively in order to enable life. He suggests that Uberman should not be afraid to inflict pain when it is needed, like a skilled surgeon. I would suggest that this would be a case where a truly Christ like figure would have had the courage to challenge the General to face his situation face on, so that he could maintain his pride.
Natasya Filliopovna--have you ever been pitied? Or given charity? It is not a great feeling. Could you imagine a dynamic woman like Natasya being pitied? Once again, Natasya needed a real man who could challenge her bouts of childish selfishness and bring her back into her own strength. Pity never does this--it invites more shame. I probably would have done the same thing as Natasya!
Aglaya--he never really loved her with power. He just responded to her overtures. He was largely ineffectual. Would you want to marry a man who, when pressed for a commitment, just crushes down? He cheated her of a real proposal, he just went along with whatever the family seemed to want. He floated in the wind. When Aglaya wanted some sort of show that he really loved her, he just waffled between the two women. What kind of love is that? And then he humiliated her. It's not like he was aware of the materialism and shallowness of the society and strove to overcome it, he just didn't seem to get it at all! The thing that makes a hero is that he is aware of circumstances and he overcomes them. Prince Myshkin just wasn't aware of circumstances!
There is no neat way to end this...it is just a few thoughts I've been having about this novel. And I'll look forward to your responses which will hopefully either contribute to this reading of the text, or which will challenge me to clarify my thinking!
Questions about The Idiot
I recently finished reading The Idiot for the first time, and have many questions about many of the passages. One passage which I have given alot of thought to is the scene with Myshkin and Rogozhin as they discuss God and exchange crosses. Is the cheap tin cross that Myshkin gives to Rogozhin meant to symbolize Rogozhin's values, while the gold one which he gives to Myshkin is meant to symbolize Myshkin's pure ideals and concept of God? Also, the Holbein picture of Christ really stood out to me as a representation of the vacillating extremes between faith and doubt, though I felt there must be much more to it than that. When Rogozhin said that he liked the picture precisely because it was making him lose his faith, could that be meant to reveal humanity's nihilistic nature? Any ideas about the meaning of this passage would be appreciated.
