To save her...or to save Parfen Roghozin?Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Printable View
To save her...or to save Parfen Roghozin?Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
I would say both...
Now you, Gladys and Islandclimber, have me very interested in this book. I think I will start it tonight.
Janine, it was a wonderful story. I hope you do read it. I think you'll love it.
motherhubbard, Thanks for recommending it. I think that D.H.Lawrence wrote some critiques and he actually did like this book of D's the best. It must be hopeful. I know he had some issues with some of D's other novels or ideas. I have been curious to read "The Idiot", after I read L's review, since I am a big Lawrence fan. Funny how one book will lead you to another.
I did read the first chapter in the book and found it quite interesting. I liked the style of writing very much and the book grabbed my attention immediately. I know it has to be a great read; one can always tell from the first chapter. It is a long book and I am a slow reader so I can't promise too much in the way of commentary. I haven't been well lately so I will see what I can do after I complete the novel. At least I probably will be able to write up a few thoughts on the book.
How are you getting on Janine?
I'll be starting part 2 tonight, and have been looking forward to it all day.
I have to say that I am very positively surprised with this book (I voted for We). I haven't read any other Dostoievski's books but went to a play based on C&P and almost died of boredom :yawnb: (must have been the play though and not the text itself).
I find the Idiot easy to read, a nice storyline and lot's of interesting characters (regardless of whether I like them or not).
I haven't read all of your comments (-I'm afraid of coming across a spoiler or getting preconceived ideas) but for now I tend to agree with Mickitaz on many points, particularly :
I wouldn't have said it better myself ;) Why do you think that is? because he seems so naive or because he speaks the truth and expresses his feelings out loud instead of getting into lies, treacheries and calculating every single move like he's playing a game of chess (like most of all the other characters do)?Quote:
What I particularly am intrigued with is that everyone implicates Muishkan as a simple minded creature. Furthermore, that he is mentally unstable. To be frank, I think that he is the most sane person presented so far. I am sure the extent of other characters bizzar behavior is to enhance a particular point.
About Nastasia, I still can't decide whether to despise her or take pity on her...
Just an additional question - I'm reading the book in French and I was wondering if in the English version there are lots of words or sentences in French because in the footnotes it says that they were in French in the original version... Just curious.
PS: Mickitaz, how's your neck by the way ? :p
I finally finally got hold of a copy of the idiot today, I might read it on friday...:D
Thanks for asking, lugdunum, lots of ups and downs lately; will be ok if I get my meds straightened out; long complicated story.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
I may read some tonight. I liked it so far.Quote:
I'll be starting part 2 tonight, and have been looking forward to it all day.
Same here, and actually I voted on "Notes From the Underground" - I admit since I saw that was the shortest and I happen to have the book; I did start that book but it did not catch my interest as this one does. I was also surprised at how I took to the writing in "The Idiot" - besides the title sort of makes me curious. It flows quite nicely. I was not sure what you meant by C&P, but now I see what you are talking about and that the play was merely based on the book. I just bought a book of some Russian plays by different authors; hope that is good. Think there is one in there by D. of it may have been Chekhov.Quote:
I have to say that I am very positively surprised with this book (I voted for We). I haven't read any other Dostoievski's books but went to a play based on C&P and almost died of boredom :yawnb: (must have been the play though and not the text itself).
So did I find it easy to read and I am reading in English.Quote:
I find the Idiot easy to read, a nice storyline and lot's of interesting characters (regardless of whether I like them or not).
Oh, referring to me or someone else?Quote:
I haven't read all of your comments (-I'm afraid of coming across a spoiler or getting preconceived ideas) but for now I tend to agree with Mickitaz on many points, particularly :
That was good, the way Mickitaz put that. I have a feeling I will agree with this once I read more of the book.Quote:
I wouldn't have said it better myself ;) Why do you think that is? because he seems so naive or because he speaks the truth and expresses his feelings out loud instead of getting into lies, treacheries and calculating every single move like he's playing a game of chess (like most of all the other characters do)?
PS: Mickitaz, how's your neck by the way ? :p[/QUOTE]Quote:
About Nastasia, I still can't decide whether to despise her or take pity on her...
Just an additional question - I'm reading the book in French and I was wondering if in the English version there are lots of words or sentences in French because in the footnotes it says that they were in French in the original version... Just curious.
I know you are probably speaking tobut I am reading it in English; so far I haven't gotten far enough to run into phrases in French, but I will let you know.Quote:
Michitaz,
He doesn't realize how the society and human relationships function. He was too long with kids, and he doesn't realize that people are rude, bad and selfish. People find him stupid, then they realize his is just too good and his stupidness is a result of strange belief that every human is actually good; and the truth is that almost every human is actually bad, and then they start to like him. But, they still treat him as an Idiot. Poor Knight, Aglaya, Eugene Pavlich, etc - more then few examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
Why people generally despise her? I don't get it.Quote:
About Nastasia, I still can't decide whether to despise her or take pity on her...
Many his novels are filled with French, and especially Idiot. I asked the same once my Russian teacher; Russians just loved French. In Dead souls Gogol wrote: Every Russian girl in schools learns three things: house keeping, piano and French. Of course, it's not always in that order; sometimes it's piano, French and house keeping.:DQuote:
Just an additional question - I'm reading the book in French and I was wondering if in the English version there are lots of words or sentences in French because in the footnotes it says that they were in French in the original version... Just curious.
Agreed, he does sometimes act like a child. And as you say probably because he spent too much time with them when he was already an adult. But he also has some very adult reasoning and (at least so far) it seems to me that he is getting more and more adult reactions (in the good way) as the book goes on I might be proved wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
And he is good at psychologically analyzing people (-at least that's what I gathered do far).
And it's true that people seem to like him and some even come to him for advice, thing you probably wouldn't do if you thought someone was a real idiot and yet they keep saying that he is...
I don't know. On one hand I think I despise her because everything she does seems so weird, so childish, so annoying. I mean why on earth would she want to marry Rogojine (not sure of the spelling) and then keep running back and forth from this wedding. Why can she not calm down, think and decide on what to do instead of running around like that? And also, like someone said previously, she's playing around with men in a annoying way. But then again, she's being completely manipulated by them and considered like an object or a hunting prize so that could justify it... ;)Quote:
Why people generally despise her? I don't get it.
Then on the other hand I can't help feeling sorry for her because she does look a bit mentally ill, and who wouldn't with the past that she's had... So I'm not really sure what to think about her. I'll try to make up my mind after finishing the book :D
:lol:Quote:
Every Russian girl in schools learns three things: house keeping, piano and French. Of course, it's not always in that order; sometimes it's piano, French and house keeping.:D
Myshkin is considered an "idiot", at least for much of the book, because he is entirely unaware of the societal norms and conventions of the time... mostly as bazarov points out, due to his spending his entire adulthood up this point with children... he may be intelligent and have an uncanny ability to analyze people but he is quite innocent, quite naive in a sense for lack of a better term, and quite out of place in society as is illustrated by many incidents throughout the novel..
People do realize he is quite intelligent though, at times.. I forget who said it, but someone in the novel, surprised by Myshkin's intelligence, says something about how maybe he is not the idiot after all... Dostoevsky wants us to know he is considered an idiot because of his apparent naivete and innocence regarding society... the Christ figure of the story is considered a fool and laughed at countless times... and maybe he is saying something about modern belief.. as Dostoevsky did believe the only way Russia could be saved was through the Russian Orthodox Church...
I still don't understand how anyone could really dislike Nastasia.. she is obviously somewhat mentally unstable... maybe the prince pushed her over the edge with his original marriage proposal when she decided she was not good enough for him... she seemed to have a nervous breakdown almost... and lose it... but no matter.. she is miserable and one can only feel pity for her, and her condition imo...
cheers:)
The prince valued little 'societal norms and conventions of the time'. He valued integrity and compassion, spectacularly illustrated by, 'His tears flowed on to Roghozin's cheek'.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
'...after leaving the prince, the doctor [in Pavlofsk] said to Lebedev: "If all such people were put under restraint, there would be no one left for keepers."'Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
I couldn't agree with you more about the prince placing little value and emphasis on those things.. I wasn't trying to say he is an idiot, just that, that is why others consider him to be an idiot... I am not sure though whether him placing little value on those things is a conscious choice that he is aware of making or not, though i think not.. he seems to just be himself for better or worse, which is another reason he is considered an idiot and out of place.. speaking his thoughts and emotions much to freely.. how awful!!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
i love the quote you chose to illustrate that... very moving...
and the second quote although it isn't the one i was thinking of :(.. it is another great example of someone realizing that maybe it isn't Myshkin who has something wrong with him, it is the rest of us.. :).. thank you Gladys:)
I agree with many of the things you are all pointing out about the prince. I really find him fascinating and he is very childlike and innocent; he seems sensitive and honest; unpretentious.
I am just past the second chapter or maybe the third and I feel a little lost. Am I daft of is it a bit confusing understanding what the general and Ganya are saying about the woman in the portrait? I could not quite get the drift there. Maybe I am not meant to know the full portent, until I get to further chapters? It was late, when I was reading it, and I did not feel well yesterday. Can someone fill me in or should I just re-read that chapter?
The prince says it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
"It's a wonderful face," said the prince, "and I feel sure that her destiny is not by any means an ordinary, uneventful one. Her face is smiling enough, but she must have suffered terribly-- hasn't she? Her eyes show it--those two bones there, the little points under her eyes, just where the cheek begins. It's a proud face too, terribly proud! And I--It's a proud face too, terribly proud! And I--I can't say whether she is good and kind, or not. Oh, if she be but good! That would make all well!"
"And would you marry a woman like that, now?" continued Gania, never taking his excited eyes off the prince's face.
"I cannot marry at all," said the latter. "I am an invalid."
"Would Rogojin marry her, do you think?"
"Why not? Certainly he would, I should think. He would marry her tomorrow!--marry her tomorrow and murder her in a week!"
What do you all think of Elizabetha Prokofievna (Mrs. Epanchin)?
Although I sometimes find her a bit silly, generally I have some sympathy for her. She is after all good-natured and I like her eccentricity. Actually, her behaviour rather amuses me :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
What actually puzzles me is that Aglaya is supposed to be like her, after all Elizabetha Prokofievna says so herself (there are lots of passages where amidst her thoughts concerning Aglaya's nature and future, Mrs. Epanchin says that Aglaya is exactly like her when she was young.) My problem is that I can't really see some convincing evidence of this resemblance between mother and daughter. May be I don't read carefully enough, but I don't see it. I mean I can't see how to compare the rather rational Aglaya with Elizabetha's nervous behaviour and moodiness.
I agree with you. She usually makes me smile (even laugh), especially when she gets so carried away and excited about something.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexei
True. I've been wondering about this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexei
But if Aglaya is so like her mother, how come she stilll have loads of guys interested in marrying her???? Wouldn't it be a living nightmare being married to Ms. Epanchin hahaha:lol:
Gladys, thanks for answering my question. Yes, I know what you mean about the prince's perception gazing on the photo. I just did not quite connect what the other two men were conversing about but now that I have pushed on in the book, it has all become much clearer to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
I am enjoying this novel very much so far. I find the story somewhat amusing so far; and the prince very intelligent and nice; he is also amusing in his own unique way; but my feeling is that he is eons ahead in his thoughts than all of the rest of the characters, so far.
The final chapter adds to our understanding of Lizabetha Prokofievna. The testimonies of virginal Vera Lebedev, forthright Lizabetha Prokofievna and skeptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch concerning the committed prince, suggest an unlikely resurrection: with the two Marys and Salome visiting an empty Swiss tomb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexei
Lizabetha Prokofievna, when she saw poor Muishkin, in his enfeebled and humiliated condition, had wept bitterly. Apparently all was forgiven him.Lizabetha Prokofievna seethes with the same sincerity and subjective passion as her naive daughter, Aglaya:
She [Aglaya] was so fascinated that, even before marrying him, she joined a committee that had been organized abroad to work for the restoration of Poland; and further, she visited the confessional of a celebrated Jesuit priest, who made an absolute fanatic of her.
An unlikely resurrection?
After each visit to Schneider's establishment, Evgenie Pavlovitch writes another letter...In these letters is to be detected, and in each one more than the last, a growing feeling of friendship and sympathy.
when i read this book it blew me away. everything that can be seen in todays society laid bare in the book
I have a like sentiment. I am not even half-way through the book and I am blown away by it. I was reading last night and just could not seem to put this novel down. I started it kind of late for the discussion but I am so happy to say I am making wonderul progress and know I can't wait to get back to reading it. It is a real page turner and the characters totally have me captivated. I love this book and think that feeling will continue until the end - the very last page.Quote:
Originally Posted by jikan myshkin
Gladys, I've read your post, but I am afraid I still can't really understand. The problem is I haven't finished the book yet, so I'll need some time till I get to the passages you've quoted. I think I'll understand better when I read them :D
Hi Everybody!
I am making good progress with my reading...I read slowly and I don't wish to do otherwise with this book, given the quality of the writing and the intricacy of the characters and plot. I just passed the part when the group of men came into the gathering and Kolya read the long letter of their demands upon the prince and then he answered them; I believe now I am to the part where Ganya intercedes on his behalf. Wow, that was a very interesting scene but so far my favorites were the party with Natashia throwing the bundle of money into the fire and all of her seemingly erractic behavior and also the scene prior to that when Rogeozhin barged into the house of Ganya's family. I also found fascinating the scene in which the prince went to visit Rogeozhin and especially the part about them switching the crosses (I have a really bad feeling about that) and the part about the painting over the doorway. Wow, that scene was amazing, even the part where R marches the prince through the house to where his mother is and she holds her hand up to him and blesses him.
I tried not to read too far ahead here in the posts, but then I did read some I probably should not have and hope I did not spoil the ending for myself. Just to note to those who have posted. If you do tell about the ending or something grealy significant near the end could you please put SPOILER before that part, so I and others don't read it, until they finish the novel?
I have a few problems keeping the various names straight, but that is usual with me and Russian novels. I really need to write them all down and keep a card by me, for reference, as to the various characters and their alternate names. I am a bit confused at this point about one character - Lebedyev. When the prince went back and encountered him teaching his own children and he seemed to be trying to swindle the prince for money, because now he was a widower and 'his poor children were suffering and hungry', I could not clearly recall when this character, Lebedyev. I did recall when he was first introduced into the story. Can someone fill me in a little better on this character and when he first appeared? I don't want to lose time searching back into the text, since I want to progress with my reading, so I can comment more in this discussion group.
Edit: I failed to mention that two parts in the story have also greatly fascinated me and I believe they directly relate. One was the part when the prince was talking about the execution, and the 'second' before the guillotine blade fell upon the victim. I thought that whole passage extremely deep and interesting and I have not been able to stop thinking about it since. I realised there is much meaning in that passage and felt it also fortold some future event or events.
The other was when the prince would speak of that 'second', when all clarity seemed to come to him and his sense of the world was heightened...the 'second' before he would lapse into an epileptic fit. Also, I was wondering if this is an accurate description of what people do experience who have these seizures? How did the author come up with his description? Did he have first hand knowledge of such things or was it entirely fictional?
I believe these concepts of the 'second' both relate to each other - both anticipate a kind of death - one actual death and one could result in death or oblivion of some sort, perhaps worse than death. They certainly are interesting to consider in relation to each other. They both also bring up the whole concept of 'time'...one that continually fascintes me...how we perceive time at different moments of our lives.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one taking more than a month to read this (great) book. I am also highly enjoying it and hope that this thread will remain active in the coming days/weeks.
Thanks Janine for warning about possible spoilers...
Also, I agree with you Janine about the names and the difficulty not to get mixed up!! but yet again, as you mentioned it is something rather common with Russian books!! I mean, first of all the names are usually quite hard to remember, but in addition to that they keep giving each other nicknames and this is REALLY confusing.
Well, the only thing I can tell you is that I got used to it after a while ad I'm sure you will too... So hang in there ;)
The fine detail in your last post, Janine, refreshes memories long forgotten. Moreover, I had not appreciated that Lebedeff was the clerk on the train to Petersburg, talking with Rogojin and the prince in Chapter 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
"Oh, but I do know, as it happens," said the clerk in an aggravating manner. "Lebedeff knows all about her. You are pleased to reproach me, your excellency, but what if I prove that I am right after all? Nastasia Phillpovna's family name is Barashkoff--I know, you see-and she is a very well known lady, indeed, and comes of a good family, too. She is connected with one Totski, Afanasy Ivanovitch, a man of considerable property, a director of companies, and so on, and a great friend of General Epanchin, who is interested in the same matters as he is."
"My eyes!" said Rogojin, really surprised at last. "The devil take the fellow, how does he know that?"
"Why, he knows everything--Lebedeff knows everything! I was a month or two with Lihachof after his father died, your excellency, and while he was knocking about--he's in the debtor's prison now--I was with him, and he couldn't do a thing without Lebedeff; and I got to know Nastasia Philipovna and several people at that time."
"Nastasia Philipovna? Why, you don't mean to say that she and Lihachof--" cried Rogojin, turning quite pale.
"No, no, no, no, no! Nothing of the sort, I assure you!" said Lebedeff, hastily. "Oh dear no, not for the world! Totski's the only man with any chance there. Oh, no! He takes her to his box at the opera at the French theatre of an evening, and the officers and people all look at her and say, 'By Jove, there's the famous Nastasia Philipovna!' but no one ever gets any further than that, for there is nothing more to say."
Thanks Gladys and lugdunum, I think we will be here a while further discussing this complex book; in my opinion it needs a few months for a really good discussion and analysis. I am on page 293 (in my translation - Constance Garnett), and I am thinking that maybe, I need a set of study notes (Cliff notes, E-notes, etc) to understand fully what is now going on. I do find this text a bit confusing at times. How 'bout you, two? Do you 'get' or understand every part of the plot and intrigues?
I keep thinking this book definitely needs a second reading, but it is weighty reading, and I don't know if I will find the time, anytime soon, to re-read it. Thanks, Gladys, for pointing out when we first meet up with Lebedeff (his name is altered in my translation -Lebedyev). I kept thinking I should go back and read that train journey part to clear up my veiws on Rogozhin.
I do love this book so far, but I can't say it is always an easy book to read and understand, or am I just a little daft? This is the first book of D's I have read. I do however think that most times it flows nicely and is not hard to read - just hard to comprehend all that is going on and much goes on with multiple characters. I think that Dostoyevsky implies or suggests certain things and gives us only hints, and then later clears it up with more explanation, am I right? I refer to the confusing scene on the veranda and the one that followed when the carriage drove by? As I was reading I was following the intrigue in the room fine and then suddenly I got lost and could not make complete or clear sense out of just what was going on. Was part of that story fabricated, the one that Ganya told? This is where they lost me. I hope someone knows and fills me in on it. I got the gist of the scene, but still that whole scene seems sort of 'surreal' to me now.
Well, I know that someday I must come back to this book again and re-read it when I have the time. I always think second readings reveal more, don't you?
I'm with you on every point Janine and thanks Gladys for providing such complete and precise answers. O you have a really good knowledge of the novel to know exactly where to fiind the perfect quote each time?
I have the same feeling about the book. On one hand I find really easy to read and a real page turner. But on the other hand, I feel that by reading it to quickly and perhaps too superficially I am missing many important ideas and the real psychological depth of each character. As I read along, I get the feeling that due to the confusion caused by the complicated names and nicknames, I am not grasping all the details...
It would definitely be very interesting to re-read this book at least once and with Cliff notes.
I really like the passages you mentioned Janine about the execution. And like you I've been thinking a lot about it.
Alexei, how are you getting along? Have you finished the book yet?
lugdunum, thanks for taking the time to read my entry. I did write a bit and know that can be tiring and especially when we divide our time here between various threads.
Yes, those parts having to do with that minute or second really interesting me the most and also the way in which Myshkin does not think as the others do but with great depth and meaning.
I just was looking online for some type of study notes and only so far came up with this article and thought it was quite interesting. I served to answer some of my own questions as to how the author had first hand knowledge about epilepsy and other conditions perhaps involving the mind. I think you all will find it somewhat insightful.
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/.../pmIdiot11.asp
I will keep looking online for more notes. Spark Notes one has to pay for so looking for any free commentary I can find.
***
Edit: Yeah! I just found an online Sparks notes that is free. This will shed a lot of light on the novel and also the various characters and plot themes. It should help us all.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/
Here is a complete character list - I intend to copy this out on my computer. It should help a lot with the names.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/characters.html
After Rogozhin buys earrings with the seven thousand roubles his father tasked him to fetch, he stands by shyly as a friend gives Nastasia Philipovna the earrings on his behalf. On the train, Parfen Rogozhin recounts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
"Well, what do you think? The old fellow [father] went straight off to Nastasia Philipovna, touched the floor with his forehead, and began blubbering and beseeching her on his knees to give him back the diamonds. So after awhile she brought the box and flew out at him. 'There,' she says, 'take your earrings, you wretched old miser; although they are ten times dearer than their value to me now that I know what it must have cost Parfen to get them! Give Parfen my compliments,' she says, 'and thank him very much!' Well, I meanwhile had borrowed twenty-five roubles from a friend, and off I went to Pskoff to my aunt's. The old woman there lectured me so that I left the house and went on a drinking tour round the public-houses of the place. I was in a high fever when I got to Pskoff, and by nightfall I was lying delirious in the streets somewhere or other!"
Like an oil painter, he adds paint to canvass giving rise to fragments which, ultimately, coalesce. A week ago I finished 'The Insulted and Injured', and continue to muse in the firm hope of coalescence. After reading 'The Idiot', I pondered for weeks. All Dostoyevsky's like that...and I love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I am uncertain which scene these are. Evgenie Pavlovitch's role in the story intrigues me: 'Evgenie Pavlovitch stood on the steps like one struck by lightning' when Nastasia spoke to him from the carriage 'drawn by a pair of beautiful white horses'. Prince S. exclaims, "A man of property like Evgenie to give IOU's to a money-lender, and to be worried about them! It is ridiculous. Besides, he cannot possibly be on such intimate terms with Nastasia Philipovna as she gave us to understand; that's the principal part of the mystery!".Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Hi, Jainine :wave: You've done an amazing amount of work. I've been interested in those issues as well. I am afraid I have more thoughts on the second one though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think the execution issue has its natural place in the novel especially after we've all agreed on Myshkin's figure as some kind of Christ figure. I think these thoughts of the Prince are somehow related to what is going to happen with him latter on. I am not sure though, it's just some kind of intuition :lol:
I think these descriptions of the epilepsy are very important as some additional idealization of the Prince, I believe that by his illness and his visions he is separated from the other characters and he is placed on some different, higher level. It seems to me that this is what makes him the potential Christ figure. There is something more though, in the ancient Rome epilepsy was called "Morbus Comitialis" (This means "Sacred Disease" and I am pretty sure that variations of this term are used for it in most of the ancient languages) and was considered as something very special, mark of distinction. It was considered both a gift and a curse, because it was associated with different types of religious experiences (from gift for prophecy and sign of a potential shaman to a demonic possession). In addition to this there were a lot of very important figures, who suffered from it: Caesar, Caligula etc. Even Alexander the Great suffered from a similar condition. That's why this unearthly experiences Myshkin has during his seizures seems kind of normal for the malady. In addition to this, I think Dostoevsky himself suffered from epilepsy, so I suppose the descriptions should be pretty authentic.
Hey, Lugdunum :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
I am afraid I am behind on this one as well. Starting another book got me a bit distracted, but I've managed to finish the third part of the book and I am getting closer to the end ;) I think I'll be able to finish it till the end of the week, at least I hope so :D
Oh, glad it was helpful to you; thanks. I thought I had better start posting some comments on the actual story up to the parts I had read or I would forget them. Beware though, last night I printed out the character list and I was annoyed because one of the descriptions gave away a major aspect of the plot. I wish I had not known it and this way the book would be more thrilling. So there are so spoilers in those Spark Notes - BEWARE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexei
Alexei, that is excellent. I like the way you expressed this idea. I would certainly agree. I also get a felling (intuition) or pick up on clues that lead me to a forbodding feeling, as to what will happen at the end.Quote:
I think the execution issue has its natural place in the novel especially after we've all agreed on Myshkin's figure as some kind of Christ figure. I think these thoughts of the Prince are somehow related to what is going to happen with him latter on. I am not sure though, it's just some kind of intuition :lol:
Thanks for adding these ideas to mine. This expands the whole idea on the epilespsy and it is very interesting. Did you read this link (?):Quote:
I think these descriptions of the epilepsy are very important as some additional idealization of the Prince, I believe that by his illness and his visions he is separated from the other characters and he is placed on some different, higher level. It seems to me that this is what makes him the potential Christ figure. There is something more though, in the ancient Rome epilepsy was called "Morbus Comitialis" (This means "Sacred Disease" and I am pretty sure that variations of this term are used for it in most of the ancient languages) and was considered as something very special, mark of distinction. It was considered both a gift and a curse, because it was associated with different types of religious experiences (from gift for prophecy and sign of a potential shaman to a demonic possession). In addition to this there were a lot of very important figures, who suffered from it: Caesar, Caligula etc. Even Alexander the Great suffered from a similar condition. That's why this unearthly experiences Myshkin has during his seizures seems kind of normal for the malady. In addition to this, I think Dostoevsky himself suffered from epilepsy, so I suppose the descriptions should be pretty authentic.
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/.../pmIdiot11.asp
Edit: forget the link - the article is not there anymore but luckily I did copy it to my hard-drive. Here it is:
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/...1.aspLiterary/ Historical Information
Since this person's article talks about how Dostoyevsky himself was an epileptic, I guess he did indeed have first hand knowledge to support that feeling Myshkin has, when he is about to go into one of his fits or seizures; it is almost like a religious experience or an awakening.Quote:
Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote Idiot at a time when he was disturbed both in body and mind. He had had an attack of epilepsy and his mind was restless. The revolutionary and rebellious spirit that he had possessed in youth gave way to philosophical outlook and idealism. Suffering had ennobled him. His struggle and experience as a prisoner haunted by death mellowed his fiery temperament and urged him to create an ideal character who embodied goodness. Thus, during his stay abroad and after his marriage to Anna Gregorievna, he wrote Idiot. "He began notes for the novel on 14 September 1867 in Geneva, where he stayed until the end of May 1868; continued them in Vevey from June until the beginning of September 1868; in Milan until the middle of November; and he finished the novel in Florence, where he stayed through January 1869."
Idiot presents a few of Dostoevsky’s biographical sketches and anecdotes. Prince Myshkin has traces of Dostoevsky in him. He is a patient of epilepsy like his creator and also an idealist like him. He voices the author’s views on suffering, capital punishment and creativity. Dostoevsky deviated from the main plot of the story to reflect his ideas through the Prince and other characters in the novel.
Why Dostoevsky called his protagonist an idiot is not clear? Could it be because Myshkin had suffered from a mental illness or that he was a simpleton? The word ‘Idiot’ is derived from the Greek ‘idiotes’ which means a "private person, a common man, an ignorant uninformed person." It is possible that Dostoevsky named Myshkin an ‘idiot’ because he was essentially a private person, ignorant of the ways of the world and the representative of the common man.
Alexei, I am only a little past Part 3; I hoped to read last night but then it got too late to do so and I got too tired out. I will resume tonight. I read the character analysis list instead and took a short breather from the book.Quote:
I am afraid I am behind on this one as well. Starting another book got me a bit distracted, but I've managed to finish the third part of the book and I am getting closer to the end ;) I think I'll be able to finish it till the end of the week, at least I hope so :D
New thoughts:
Anyone else have a feeling of forboding about the interchange of the crosses at Rogozhin's house...also the emphasis put on that knife laying on the table and that finally R put away between the pages of that book?
I think both forshadow the events to come...why else would they be so prominent in this scene?
Also, I find that Rogozhin is very unstable, almost as bad as Natasysa. Actually, it seems there are a lot of unstable and wounded people in this novel. It seems that only Myshkin is anyway stable and yet he is naive. Most of the characters one time or the other seems to be unpredicable or impulsive but Myshkin seems to be the focused one and no rash, although he did offer to marry Natasysa in a very impulsive manor but still I got the impression he knew what he was doing in asking her. I think he really was as a knight and wanted merely to save her from herself. So I don't know if his action could be called rash or unstable, impulsive...he seems to think out all that he does before he does it; even though he tries to reason sometimes and cannot fully grasp the outcome or solution.
The interchange of the crosses is so moving: the prince's tin one for Roghozin’s gold. An expression of love.
In the past, epilepsy has sometimes been misconstrued as idiocy.
Is there clear evidence that the prince is naive?
Was it? I don't know, when I read up to that part I found it forbodding of some incident to come. I guess I am suspicious naturally and thought there may be some hidden motive on Roghozin's behalf and I found the Myshkin was rather reluctant to trade. I may be thinking back to a similar plot incident in Frankenstein involving a locket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
That is most likely true. If you read the some definitions online or in Wikipedia I believe they will mention that fact.Quote:
In the past, epilepsy has sometimes been misconstrued as idiocy.
I did find clear text evidence by the author, not the perception of the individual characters, that the prince has some characteristics of naivity. I will try and post those passages tonight.Quote:
Is there clear evidence that the prince is naive?
An expression of love? True love, Janine, never runs smooth - and once, long ago on Golgotha, even led to crucifixion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
For certain, for this true love that Rogozhin has for Myshkin and for Nataysia does not run anyway smooth. Well, the thought crossed my mind that maybe it was like the kiss of Judas. Right after that scene Rogozhin attempts to stab Myshkin in the stairwell, and then is only saved, by Myshkin going into one of his fits. I think I have an idea of futher events to come and so we should judge why the crosses were exchanged at that time. I hope my sceptism is not correct and this was a true expression of love on the behalf of Rogozhin. I know that it was not instigated by Myshkin...and like I said, he was reluctant to take the other cross in exchange for his.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
The knife and the picture over the doorway both are forshadowing of what will come; I am sure of it.
Gladys, how far along are you in the novel?
I am not feeling well - now it is a cold I contracted from my sister. I just got over a stomach problem and caught this darn cold. Anyway, I can't post that segment of text tonight but will try to tomorrow night - the one on the naive aspect of Myshkin.
I read 'The Idiot' before Christmas and have been rereading bits of it since, while deliberately avoiding commentaries. I stumbled upon the Forum Book Club a month ago and am currently reading Grass's 'The Tin Drum', Ibsen's 'Brand', and Sophocles 'King Oedipus'.
The picture over the doorway: "That picture! That picture!" cried Muishkin, struck by a sudden idea. "Why, a man's faith might be ruined by looking at that picture!"
Interesting, he pointed it in Demons and in Brothers Karamazov also. But not only Russia, the rest of the world also; although he didn't care much about others.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
That's such a great quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
But it means that world is filled with smart humans which is wrong...
Interesting. The end and Nastasya's death were obvious from the start; Prince pointed it several times, Ipolit did it also; like there were no other possibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
That happened to Dostoevsky in Switzerland, he liked it a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
He was in the train with Prince and Rogozhin.Quote:
I could not clearly recall when this character, Lebedyev. I did recall when he was first introduced into the story. Can someone fill me in a little better on this character and when he first appeared? I don't want to lose time searching back into the text, since I want to progress with my reading, so I can comment more in this discussion group.
Execution - true fact from Dostoevsky's life. He was sentenced to death, but just before shooting, penalty was changed for 7 years in Siberia.Quote:
Edit: I failed to mention that two parts in the story have also greatly fascinated me and I believe they directly relate. One was the part when the prince was talking about the execution, and the 'second' before the guillotine blade fell upon the victim. I thought that whole passage extremely deep and interesting and I have not been able to stop thinking about it since. I realised there is much meaning in that passage and felt it also fortold some future event or events.
Guillotine - Idiot was quite inspired with Jean Valjean; and something similar was described in Les Miserables.
Personal experiences; He suffered from epilepsy also.Quote:
The other was when the prince would speak of that 'second', when all clarity seemed to come to him and his sense of the world was heightened...the 'second' before he would lapse into an epileptic fit. Also, I was wondering if this is an accurate description of what people do experience who have these seizures? How did the author come up with his description? Did he have first hand knowledge of such things or was it entirely fictional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
That's also from His life; He saw that picture in Switzerland, while he was writing Idiot.
Did Aglaya liked Prince because he was Poor Knight or she felt sorry for him like he did for Nastasya?
When Prince said ''The beauty will save the world!'', did he meant on beauty of soul or beauty of face?
To those who despise Nastasya, remember the story from The Bible about Maria Magdalena.
'...after leaving the prince, the doctor [in Pavlofsk] said to Lebedev: "If all such people were put under restraint, there would be no one left for keepers."'As I understand the quote, “If we commit to asylums all those as sane as the prince, no one saner would remain on the planet to staff those asylums”.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov