September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

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.

---

Hi Bazarov,I don't quite get your meaning here. Could your further explain? I know you are directing this to islandclimber, but I want to grasp the meaning myself.

Quote:

---

That's such a great quote.
But it means that world is filled with smart humans which is wrong...

---

I am not sure I understand this or the quote, not exactly. Can you explain it clearer to me?

Quote:

---

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.

---

I thought that also even though I have not yet encountered this part in the book and we are both giving this away although probably I am the one most behind in my reading. I found it out when glancing at some online commentary but I felt this would be the outcome from the various clues in the story and the forshadowing. It is not hard to guess.

Quote:

---

That happened to Dostoevsky in Switzerland, he liked it a lot.

---

So interesting, Bazarov, to know of the actual events behind this story - great! I always get into that sort of biographical information. I would like to hear more about how the story directly came from incidents or occurances in Dostoevsky's life. This makes it so much more meaningful for me. I love books based on true events or stories or experiences. This makes it all so personal and so much more thought-provoking.

Quote:

---

He was in the train with Prince and Rogozhin.

---

Thanks, Bazarov, Yes, Gladys, I think, pointed this out for me. I think maybe I will eventually go back and read that passage again. Trouble was I started the book and then layed it asside and picked it up later; I kind of forgot some details from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Execution - true fact from Dostoevsky's life. He was sentenced to death, but just before shooting, penalty was changed for 7 years in Siberia.
Guillotine - Idiot was quite inspired with Jean Valjean; and something similar was described in Les Miserables.

---

Unbelievable...but so 'believable', really....because of the 'vivid' way he has described that moment. Why was he sentenced? I want to hear more.
That is curious about the guillotine and being related to Les Miserables...all the time he was talking about the death penalty issue I was thinking on a certain passage in Les Miserables....I believe the priest in the story was pondering the same issue and came up with a similar conclusion. I recall it standing out to me in the book when I read it, which is ages ago now. But that one particular scene I always vividly recalled - the portent of it.

Quote:

---

Personal experiences; He suffered from epilepsy also.

---

Yes, by some online research I have just found this out. I read a number of things about his personal life online; however, don't know how I missed the execution part. I must go back and read more.

Quote:

---

That's also from His life; He saw that picture in Switzerland, while he was writing Idiot.

---

Amazing. I suppose authors do get most of their ideas from real life occurances; I think this fact makes for a better novel and a deeper understanding.

Quote:

---

Did Aglaya liked Prince because he was Poor Knight or she felt sorry for him like he did for Nastasya?

---

I think she genuinely loves him in some way - not necessarily earthly and I don't think she quite understands it herself. He is so Christlike and so set appart from others that one would have to be drawn to him and his idealist thoughts and actions. He has that allure. I noticed that most who come into contact with Myshkin are altered somewhat after being with him, even for a short time. He transforms people and that can be true of the lowest human being. He seems to see the heavenly light that comes through in the prince
's being. Why then would Alagya be any different. She is quite taken by him but does not want to admit it. I could be wrong because I have not finished the book. It is just the feeling I have about her. In a way she does love him as Dulcina did to Don Quixote. I do think she sees him a the poor knight and she appreciates him inwardly, even though she is always calling him 'idiot'.

Quote:

---

When Prince said ''The beauty will save the world!'', did he meant on beauty of soul or beauty of face?

---

I am not sure; but his 'perception' of beauty, no doubt, is much different than anyone elses in the story. But, the fact does remain that the two main woman - Alagya and Nastaysia are actual physical beauties. I don't think he sees merely the surface of either woman though. I think this beauty is of the soul more than the face. Exterior beauty will not last and I think Myshkin would know this instinctively and still find beauty within. He sees them both being needful and broken, each in her own way.

Quote:

---

To those who despise Nastasya, remember the story from The Bible about Maria Magdalena.

---

From the beginning, I thought of Mary Magdalene. However, it is actually a historical/theological falsity, that MM was a whore or a fallen woman. She had commited 'sin' but we all have. Scholars now debate about her past; not that much in actual scripture is actually known about her. Most definitely though, Dostovesky is tapping into this idea of Magdalene being a fallen woman, in need of being saved by Christ, or a 'Christ-like' figure of compassion, and forgiveness. Myshkin does embody that person and so I am sure D was thinking of her when he wrote the role of Nataysia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hi Bazarov,I don't quite get your meaning here. Could your further explain? I know you are directing this to islandclimber, but I want to grasp the meaning myself.

---

Finish the book, please :D

Quote:

---

I am not sure I understand this or the quote, not exactly. Can you explain it clearer to me?

---

Thank you Gladys.:)

Quote:

---

So interesting, Bazarov, to know of the actual events behind this story - great! I always get into that sort of biographical information. I would like to hear more about how the story directly came from incidents or occurances in Dostoevsky's life. This makes it so much more meaningful for me. I love books based on true events or stories or experiences. This makes it all so personal and so much more thought-provoking.

---

I will, I promise. I have to translate a bit from my books, couldn't find it online. But, in originally, story was imagined like something totally different. :D

Quote:

---

Unbelievable...but so 'believable', really....because of the 'vivid' way he has described that moment. Why was he sentenced? I want to hear more.
That is curious about the guillotine and being related to Les Miserables...all the time he was talking about the death penalty issue I was thinking on a certain passage in Les Miserables....I believe the priest in the story was pondering the same issue and came up with a similar conclusion. I recall it standing out to me in the book when I read it, which is ages ago now. But that one particular scene I always vividly recalled - the portent of it.

---

Yes, yes; bishop Myriel said it! It also crossed my mind immediately while reading. Great memory, Janine! Or just a great book...:)

Quote:

---

Yes, by some online research I have just found this out. I read a number of things about his personal life online; however, don't know how I missed the execution part. I must go back and read more.

---

From wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Dostoevsky was arrested and imprisoned on April 23, 1849 for being a part of the liberal intellectual group, the Petrashevsky Circle. Tsar Nicholas I after seeing the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe was harsh on any sort of underground organization which he felt could put autocracy into jeopardy. On November 16 that year Dostoevsky, along with the other members of the Petrashevsky Circle, was sentenced to death. After a mock execution, in which he and other members of the group stood outside in freezing weather waiting to be shot by a firing squad, Dostoevsky's sentence was commuted to four years of exile with hard labor at a katorga prison camp in Omsk, Siberia. Dostoevsky described later to his brother the sufferings he went through as the years in which he was "shut up in a coffin."

---

I think this 4 years is only how much he spend there, not for how long he was sentenced.

Quote:

---

It is just the feeling I have about her. In a way she does love him as Dulcina did to Don Quixote. I do think she sees him a the poor knight and she appreciates him inwardly, even though she is always calling him 'idiot'.

---

I remember Don adored Dulcinea, but I can't remember she liked him :D

Quote:

---

I am not sure; but his 'perception' of beauty, no doubt, is much different than anyone elses in the story. But, the fact does remain that the two main woman - Alagya and Nastaysia are actual physical beauties. I don't think he sees merely the surface of either woman though. I think this beauty is of the soul more than the face. Exterior beauty will not last and I think Myshkin would know this instinctively and still find beauty within. He sees them both being needful and broken, each in her own way.

---

But why did he then said that ''beauty like that could change the world'' after seeing Nastasya's photo for the first time? Considering we think that soul was more important to him.

I finally finished the book :banana: The ending turned out pretty interesting :D I found a lot of notes in the end of the edition I am using, so I'll try to check them out as soon as possible and post them if I find something interesting and useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

I finally finished the book :banana: The ending turned out pretty interesting :D I found a lot of notes in the end of the edition I am using, so I'll try to check them out as soon as possible and post them if I find something interesting and useful.

---

Alexei, I am glad you finished the book. Great that you have notes at the end; wish my edition had some. If you post, please put 'SPOILER' before you post, if you tell the ending. I don't want to know too much about that yet. I am sorry but I have 200 pages left to read. It could not be helped. I was sick all month and now I have a cold on top of that.

I am doing my best to finish the book, Baz...really I am.
But one night I tried to read and felt too ill and had to keep it to one chapter. I love this book though and am anxious to move along to the ending now.

I will answer your post to my remarks later tonight or tomorrow, Bazarov; sorry for the delay...your post was most gratefully appreciated and I like hearing about D's past and life. I would answer it now, but I don't have the time and I wished to quote a few things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Exterior beauty will not last and I think Myshkin would know this instinctively

---

Oh, so true!

Nastasya Filippovna and Mary Magdalene seem to have little in common, though there is a candidate for Mary, in the ending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Anyway, I can't post that segment of text tonight...the one on the naive aspect of Myshkin

---

Did you find evidence hard to come by, Janine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

But why did he then say that ''beauty like that could change the world'' after seeing Nastasya's photo for the first time?

---

The ending answers that question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

The ending turned out pretty interesting

---

For anyone interested in my take on the ending:

SPOILER: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=34352

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Oh, so true!

---

I think it is true also...because someone, who is intuitive and sensitive as Myshkin, would see more than the average person would see within the concept of beauty. For instance, when he first views the portrait of Nataysia, his perception is not one of only physical beauty; in fact it is quite clear it is much different than that of Ganya and the General. What seems to attract him even more, is this 'certain something' in the eyes or the face; even he can't put his finger on whatever it is that draws him to the photo. I almost see this scene, similar to one gazing on the enigmatic Mona Lisa; although in this portrait, the sadness/tragedy/perhaps 'madness' is closer to what Myshkin sees; unlike the myterious expression, as in the Mona Lisa painting. In the beginning, Totsy also noticed this quality in the young Nataysia. It seemed to appear, when she was in her teen years, didn't it? Or at least, I think that is when it surfaced?
Perhaps one could say her look is mysterious to some, but Myskhin sees great tragedy in her eyes. He is the more perceptive one. Myshkin sees truth.

Quote:

---

Nastasya Filippovna and Mary Magdalene seem to have little in common, though there is a candidate for Mary, in the ending.

---

This is very true indeed. I kept thinking along the way that someone would appear that represents Mary Magdalene and so it is interesting to know this may happen near the end.

Quote:

---

Did you find evidence hard to come by, Janine?

---

Actually, yes, I am finding it difficult to locate again; but I am sure it is there. I just tried to locate it again in my book; I recall it on the right side page, even about 3/4 down, but I can't recall where I saw it - near middle of book or closer the first 1/3 - in fact, the words 'naive', and even 'naivete' are written in italics, so they should stand out. I know I saw it and now I am a bit frustrated, not being able to locate this exact text. I know it is a fairly long section of descriptive text, in which the author is reflecting on Myshkin. I should have marked that text, when I first read it; it stood out to me because, all along, I kept questioning myself, as to whether Myshkin was truly 'naive' or we got that impression from the other characters in the book. This revealed to me the direct thoughts of the author on that aspect of Myshkin. I will keep looking for it and hope I come across it soon, so that I can post some of that passage.

Quote:

---

The ending answers that question.

---

Oh, interesting, can't wait now to get there. Sorry I am behind everyone else. Will read more tonight and make good headway, I hope. I should be done soon.

[quote]For anyone interested in my take on the ending: [quote]

Quote:

---

Gladys,

---

Oh, that was so nice of you and considerate, so I don't have the ending spoiled for me. One significant event I did find out prematurely through reading a character list online. I was annoyed they gave that key part away before I got to it. I like to maintain a bit of suspense in this type novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Finish the book, please :D

---

Ok, OK...I will..... sorry to hold everyone up. I am working on it but I have been slow since I was ill and even feel asleep one night only after achieving a few pages. I will push tonight to read it and probably get close to the ending.

Quote:

---

I will, I promise. I have to translate a bit from my books, couldn't find it online. But, in originally, story was imagined like something totally different. :D

---

That would be great. I just love to hear the biographical information that relates to the novels. Whatever you find on this book would add greatly to this discussion. In the D.H.Lawrence thread I try to pull in things from outside sources in relation to the short stories - I think this adds greatly to ones understanding of a novel or a short story. Afterall the author does project his own life on his work; this can't be helped. It makes the work richer, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Yes, yes; bishop Myriel said it! It also crossed my mind immediately while reading. Great memory, Janine! Or just a great book...:)

---

So it crossed your mind, also? How interesting. I loved the book LM - absolutely, it was probably the greatest book I ever read. I read the long translation of 5 full books; my friend happened to own it; was from her husband's parents; she very generously loaned it to me.
I actually shocked myself, Bazaro... I didn't know I had such a keen memory...but then again when a passage in a book truly impresses me, I tend to recall the portend of it years later. That passage was very thought-provoking, so that I have often recalled this part throughout my life.

Thanks for the wikipedia article - very helpful! Sad though....

Quote:

---

I think this 4 years is only how much he spend there, not for how long he was sentenced.

---

Wow, so you think he was probably sentenced for even longer?

Quote:

---

I remember Don adored Dulcinea, but I can't remember she liked him :D

---

True, but I thought, even though she fought it, she underneath did love him. I thought that she basically did not feel worthy of his love. In someways it is the same or similar in this novel since Dulcina called Don a fool all the time.....fool, idiot...pretty much the same and both Don and Myshkin are 'idealists'.

Quote:

---

But why did he then said that ''beauty like that could change the world'' after seeing Nastasya's photo for the first time? Considering we think that soul was more important to him.

---

Well, in a way, her beauty does change people, but not necessarily for the good. I think the prince sees her at first, as having the kind of beauty that is powerful and could indeed change the world - such as a Cleopatra type beauty - rare and powerful, alluring, yet dangerous. In Nayashia's case she could change the world for good or for evil, in Myshkin's eyes - remember he is an idealist. She had this potennial, but I still contend that it was not just the physical features that lead him to this conclusion; rather this raw power that he feels exists in the eyes or the face in the portrait. Powerful women do often rule the world. Didn't Helen of Troy' beauty result in a huge army (nation) to fight major battles, over that beauty?

I presume all are aware that an on-line version of 'The Idiot' is available from this site at:

'The Idiot' - on-line at Literature Network Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I kept questioning myself, as to whether Myshkin was truly 'naive'

---

I may have found your passage on the prince's naivete - the only time the narrator so describes the prince. Much later, the narrator also writes, 'Aglaya, beside herself with naive amazement' - the only other instance in the novel.

In Chapter 29, we find:

The prince blushed and broke off, without finishing what he meant to say.

In spite of his shyness and agitation, he could not help being greatly interested in the conversation. A special characteristic of his was the naive candour with which he always listened to arguments which interested him, and with which he answered any questions put to him on the subject at issue. In the very expression of his face this naivete was unmistakably evident, this disbelief in the insincerity of others, and unsuspecting disregard of irony or humour in their words.

But though Evgenie Pavlovitch had put his questions to the prince with no other purpose but to enjoy the joke of his simple-minded seriousness, yet now, at his answer, he was surprised into some seriousness himself, and looked gravely at Muishkin as though he had not expected that sort of answer at all.

"Why, how strange!" he ejaculated. "You didn't answer me seriously, surely, did you?"

"Did not you ask me the question seriously" inquired the prince, in amazement.

Everybody laughed.

Not only is this passage far from straight forward, but also involves Evgenie Pavlovitch, who intrigues me still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

I presume all are aware that an on-line version of 'The Idiot' is available from this site at:

'The Idiot' - on-line at Literature Network Forums

I may have found your passage on the prince's naivete - the only time the narrator so describes the prince. Much later, the narrator also writes, 'Aglaya, beside herself with naive amazement' - the only other instance in the novel.

In Chapter 29, we find:

The prince blushed and broke off, without finishing what he meant to say.

In spite of his shyness and agitation, he could not help being greatly interested in the conversation. A special characteristic of his was the naive candour with which he always listened to arguments which interested him, and with which he answered any questions put to him on the subject at issue. In the very expression of his face this naivete was unmistakably evident, this disbelief in the insincerity of others, and unsuspecting disregard of irony or humour in their words.

But though Evgenie Pavlovitch had put his questions to the prince with no other purpose but to enjoy the joke of his simple-minded seriousness, yet now, at his answer, he was surprised into some seriousness himself, and looked gravely at Muishkin as though he had not expected that sort of answer at all.

"Why, how strange!" he ejaculated. "You didn't answer me seriously, surely, did you?"

"Did not you ask me the question seriously" inquired the prince, in amazement.

Everybody laughed.

Not only is this passage far from straight forward, but also involves Evgenie Pavlovitch, who intrigues me still.

---

Good work, Gladys, what would we do without you? I am not sure this was the exact passages, but it fits, doesn't it? I thought when I read it that there was no dialogue near the words, but my memory may be failing me. Now what part of the plot did this crop up in? Fill me in on what plot elements lead up to this part, if you can?

In my translation, the names are slightly altered, which is a little confusing, in this discussion for me. For instance, he is Yevgeny Pavlovitch in my book. He also intrigues me. I can't recall when he was first introduced or exactly who he is, or what his story is. I only know he was pursuing Aglaya for her hand. In my book she is referred to as Aglaia; see what I mean? Russian novels can be a bit confusing to read and discuss, with all the name changes and nicknames.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

...what part of the plot did this crop up in?

---

Evgenie Pavlovitch's feigned attack on 'Russian liberalism' followed Lizabetha Prokofievna's:

Thank goodness, he's an idiot, and a friend of the house! Surely Aglaya hasn't fallen in love with such a gaby! What an idea! Pfu! we ought all to be put under glass cases--myself first of all--and be shown off as curiosities, at ten copecks a peep!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Evgenie Pavlovitch's feigned attack on 'Russian liberalism' followed Lizabetha Prokofievna's:

Thank goodness, he's an idiot, and a friend of the house! Surely Aglaya hasn't fallen in love with such a gaby! What an idea! Pfu! we ought all to be put under glass cases--myself first of all--and be shown off as curiosities, at ten copecks a peep!

---

Thanks, Gladys. You always come through for me - you must have the novel memorized by now, or have you read it several times? I did consider later that might be the part of the text I read those references to the prince being naive. I was reading last night late but seemed to be having a hardtime keeping my poor tired eyes open. Also this part seems to plateau a bit and I am sort of bored. It is the part when Myshkin comes home to find all the guests at his house devouring the champagne. Now Evegenie wants to speak with him privately after they leave. I certainly wish they would do so and soon. Does anyone else think that some parts of the novel do drag out a bit? I think that Dostoeveyski can get a bit 'long-winded' at times, even stretching out some of the scenes. One in particular that I found myself getting impatient with was the one when the con artists barged onto the veranda and demanded the inheritance money from him. I simply thought after a while - 'lets get on with this'. Maybe I was just being impatient that night.

Janine if you want an interesting book about Dostoevsky's actual experience in Siberia, you should take a look at "House of the Dead".. It is somewhat fictionalized from what I remember but he wrote it about his time in Siberia.. On a side note, the opera by Janacek is also just amazing, I would highly recommend seeing it... oh Janine he did spend 4 yrs in exile in Siberia, and then was forced to spend 5 yrs in the military as a private, mostly in what is present day Kazakhstan..

I know this is dropping back a bit in the discussion, but as I haven't posted in some time.. =p It would've been interesting to see how the rest of "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" would have turned out... Because Dostoevsky did really believe that a return to traditional Russian Orthodoxy would save the world, and like Bazatov mentioned previously, this is touched upon in TBK and the Devils.. But what is interesting is the argument against any form of religion far outweighs the argument for religion, for russian orthodoxy in particular in TBK.. Ivan destroys all Alyosha's arguments, and though Father Zossima's dying words are supposed to be somewhat of a counter to this, they really do not stand up much in the face of Ivan's powerful and depressing statements of reality, in "rebellion" and "the grand inquisitor" I think are the two chapters... Ivan is terribly disillusioned and it seems as though anyone conscious or aware of surroundings would also be disillusioned by religion and the lack of harmony it allows in the universe.. especially on the idea of forgiveness.. I know in looking at his notes for the eventual entire story he planned on addressing these issues later, but it is interesting the nay side came out so powerfully in TBK.. and to tell the truth again in "the Devils"...

"The Idiot" is so interesting because it is the opposite... the Prince is portrayed as a Christ figure and self-martyred in a sense just like Christ, he embraces his sacrifice willingly for the better of everyone... A very depressing ending but nevertheless an interesting ending... is there redemption in belief in Christ shown here??? hard to say...

But I see the prince's naivete, or lack thereof is still being brought up.. I don't think one can argue with the fact the prince is portrayed as being regarded as innocent and naive regarding the world.. and there are brief moments where people are surprised by him and even change their views on him, but for the most part he is regarded as naive and innocent... he has no idea how to interact in what is the proper way according to russian society and that is constantly shown.. he constantly says the wrong things, and acts in the wrong manner, and this is due to his beautiful sincerity and honesty, but it would still be frowned upon and it often is in the context of the story...

I think the whole point of the story is that the reader realizes just how Christ-like the Prince is, how sincere and honest and wonderful he is, and to contrast that his actual slow destruction by the characters in the story, ignorant they are slowly marching him towards his own crucifix, but always slowly progressing to it...

just my take anyways.. i love this story.. it is one of my favourite of Dostoevsky's works... Actually of his 5 major novels I think whichever I am reading at the time is my favourite haha... seem to cycle through them on a regular basis..

islandclimber, I recall that you urged me to read Dostoyevsky awhile back and I am glad your did. I have bought several of his books now: Notes from the Underground" and TBK and C&P; anxious now to progress to those.

Your above entry is informative and insightful, although I am not that familar with other D novels, since I have not yet read them. I am curious. There is an early film by Ken Russell called "The Devils'...does it relate anyway to D's novel, do you know? Just curious. It is a very strange and very provocative film. I have seen excerpts on Youtube; it has a fine cast actually: Vanesa Redgrave and Oliver Reed...of course, Russell may have extracted some elements from D's work, but he does tend to create his own canvas and art form; which often times is quite demented and strange, although always fascinating.

Good suggestion about the novel on D's life story in prison and the military....thanks.

I see "The Idiot" much as you seem to. I also think he is seen 'naively' by everyone in the story, but I personally question continually if he is actually 'naive' - yes, in the ways of Russian etiquette and proper protocol, but in reality he seems to me, to have the clearer, deeper, longer ranged vision. Also, as far as everyone seeing him in the light they do - as the idiot; isn't this so similar to how Christ was perceived by the general public - he being so far out of their sphere and code of living. Christ was persecuted and crucified, because he was viewed as being 'dangerous', merely because his actions and ideas were so different, subversive to the majority. In Christ's being of gentleness and benovolence, love and forgiveness, became the very substance that the majority twisted to use against him, in order to condemn him. People fear what they can't understand and it is evident that here in "The Idiot" this same thing is present. Because they can't understand Myshkin or relate to him he is condemned in their eyes as an idiot, a mere fool; when in reality, I believe Myshkin is the only one in the novel, who has any sense of right and wrong and decency and forgiveness and salvation. Therefore he is automatically aliened to the teachings of Christ - "love thy neighbor as thyself".

How’s this from Chapter 6?! The prince talks of his time in Switzerland and his friendship with the plain, destitute, consumptive and disgraced 20-year-old, Marie, befriended by the prince and the school-children he influences.

They have planted roses all round her grave, and every year they look after the flowers and make Marie's resting-place as beautiful as they can. I was in ill odour after all this with the parents of the children, and especially with the parson and schoolmaster. Schneider was obliged to promise that I should not meet them and talk to them; but we conversed from a distance by signs, and they used to write me sweet little notes. Afterwards I came closer than ever to those little souls, but even then it was very dear to me, to have them so fond of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

One in particular that I found myself getting impatient with was the one when the con artists barged onto the veranda and demanded the inheritance money from him. I simply thought after a while - 'lets get on with this'.

---

Is this the exquisite scene at the house of General Yepanchin that so illuminates the character of Prince Myshkin, thought by friends and acquaintances to be simple, naïve, an idiot - albeit with little conviction. In the long standoff with the ‘Nihilist’ gate-crashers (Ippolit and his tipsy mates) the prince sways all to his generous view of the world, as evidenced by the unanimous about-face in attitude of guests, who were initially hostile to the gatecrashers.

Blatant is the parallel with pariah Marie and her school-children friends. Both are cogent pointers to the ending!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

...the Prince is portrayed as a Christ figure

---

I prefer to think of the prince as in Luke Ch. 9,

49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

How’s this from Chapter 6?! The prince talks of his time in Switzerland and his friendship with the plain, destitute, consumptive and disgraced 20-year-old, Marie, befriended by the prince and the school-children he influences.

They have planted roses all round her grave, and every year they look after the flowers and make Marie's resting-place as beautiful as they can. I was in ill odour after all this with the parents of the children, and especially with the parson and schoolmaster. Schneider was obliged to promise that I should not meet them and talk to them; but we conversed from a distance by signs, and they used to write me sweet little notes. Afterwards I came closer than ever to those little souls, but even then it was very dear to me, to have them so fond of me.

---

I loved this part, that you quoted; it is so beautiful - the image of Marie's grave. Don't laugh, but it reminds me of the grave of Snow White with the childlike dwarves tending it. I think the use of the rose, also is quite significant symbolically, in connection with Christianity. I somehow picture the roses red, maybe due to the blood, but then again they could be white for 'purity' or 'eternity'. I love the way Dostovesky expressed the mannor in which the children communicate with the prince (the lines you bolded up in your quote). Those seem particularly 'touching' and poetic...the way Dostoevsky used these phrases: "to write me sweet little notes", then "I came closer than ever to those little souls"....very endearing.

Quote:

---

Is this the exquisite scene at the house of General Yepanchin that so illuminates the character of Prince Myshkin, thought by friends and acquaintances to be simple, naïve, an idiot - albeit with little conviction. In the long standoff with the ‘Nihilist’ gate-crashers (Ippolit and his tipsy mates) the prince sways all to his generous view of the world, as evidenced by the unanimous about-face in attitude of guests, who were initially hostile to the gatecrashers.

---

Yes, that was the scene and you are right - it was stunning; it kept me thinking all the time. However, it just seemed to get very long. Maybe it was me, just been tired this week with a bad cold and I keep reading this book late at night; not the greatest time to absorb every detail. I guess I did not fully comprehend completely all that was going on in that scene; it seemed very intricate to me and things changed so suddenly and reversed somehow, if you know what I mean. Probably a re-reading would help, don't you think? I guess when I complete this book, I will be reading a number of scenes/chapters over again.

Quote:

---

Blatant is the parallel with pariah Marie and her school-children friends. Both are cogent pointers to the ending!

---

Still kind of slow (I'm a slow reader:() and haven't made it there yet, but I am getting anxious to know the ending. I will get there soon I hope. Go on without me, if you all wish. I know I am lagging a bit behind all of you.

Quote:

---

I prefer to think of the prince as in Luke Ch. 9,

49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

---

Good references for the prince indeed. I also kept thinking of this from the Bible in the beginning...

Quote:

---

Mathew 19:14

"But Jesus said, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven."

---

Actually, in Luke, you can find a variation on this thought, and it may be near to the quotes you had stated.

Phew, finished it yesterday. Great book! :) took me ages as I've just started an evening class so study has taken up some of my reading time.

Myshkin is a very lovable character isn't he, intelligent but simple and naive, quixotic but good hearted and innocent. I didn't think much of Aglaya or Nastasya to be honest, Nastasya is too pathetic to really be likeable and not a little crazy, Aglaya is rather spoilt and somewhat proud and capricious, though she does have her good points.

The Prince is plainly not stupid though may have been clinically an idiot at the end of the story, he is definitely naive throughout the story though I think that is due to the simplicity of his convictions and his lack of worldly experience.

I'd love to discuss it in detail but I just won't have the time :( just started reading Les Mis' too so I probably won't be around much if at all for a couple of months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DapperDrake

Phew, finished it yesterday. Great book! :) took me ages as I've just started an evening class so study has taken up some of my reading time.

---

Glad you finished it, DapperDrake. It has taken me ages also to finish. I have more to go to reach that last page. I am loving the book.

Quote:

---

Myshkin is a very lovable character isn't he, intelligent but simple and naive, quixotic but good hearted and innocent. I didn't think much of Aglaya or Nastasya to be honest, Nastasya is too pathetic to really be likeable and not a little crazy, Aglaya is rather spoilt and somewhat proud and capricious, though she does have her good points.

---

Yes, I would agree with Myshkin's character. He is so lovable and all the things you pointed out. I don't yet know what to think of the women characters. I do find Nastasya hard to take but try to look below the surface and see just why she acts as she does. Aglaya is still a mystery to me. I imagine by the end I will form more solid notions of each.

Quote:

---

The Prince is plainly not stupid though may have been clinically an idiot at the end of the story, he is definitely naive throughout the story though I think that is due to the simplicity of his convictions and his lack of worldly experience.

---

I never perceived the prince one bit stupid. In fact I felt he had special insight, sensitivity and sight that others did not have. He could pick up viscerally on just what made up the person as far as his inner-self. He may be deluded at short periods of time, in his perceptions, because he does see people basically good, and fails to see their evil, instead feeling it is but their shortcomings. Afterall he is an idealist. Most of the time though I feel he is more intune with the deeper resecesses of a person.

Quote:

---

I'd love to discuss it in detail but I just won't have the time :( just started reading Les Mis' too so I probably won't be around much if at all for a couple of months.

---

I am finding it hard to get the time to do so as well. I will comment when I have completed the novel. It is one of the best I have read for a long time. I read "Les Miserables" and loved it; I am sure you will also.

AhhAh! I finished, too...

I felt rather dissatisfied by the ending. Much the opposite of Crime & Punishment....it seemd completely devoid of redemption, and that the life of the Prince, rather than making people's lives any better, or richer, or fuller- really was somewhat pointless and yielded only to hurt and futility.

I am almost finished....maybe tonight or tomorrow night. I can't wait to get to the end. I did not read "Crime and Punishment" although I do have it here; so in your opinion, Shannon, you liked that novel best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Shannon_

I felt rather dissatisfied by the ending. Much the opposite of Crime & Punishment....it seemed completely devoid of redemption, and that the life of the Prince, rather than making people's lives any better, or richer, or fuller- really was somewhat pointless and yielded only to hurt and futility.

---

SPOILER:
Whereas I found the ending far more convincing and moving than Raskolnikov's belated and doubtful "conversion" in 'Crime and Punishment', which I read in August. The life of Prince Myshkin overflowed with Sonia's compassion to a breathtaking climax - a crucifixion.

At the end, we have signs of hope - forgiveness, redemption and even resurrection. In front of the empty tomb stood Simon Peter, "And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre". Didn't you see, Shannon, the reflection on these three faces as "the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow"?

Hey everyone,

At last!!! Finished last week :thumbs_up:thumbs_up. I really loved the book even if I tend to agree that I found some passages a bit long (although I think that it might be directly linked to my own mood and energy when reading).

I really have to thank all of you for the great amount of work you've done. Your comments were really interesting,you all know so much that it has been/is a real pleasure reading through this thread.. I will certainly use the links provided to the spark notes.

With regards to the ending, I must say that I was a bit disappointed, however, I'll try reading it again because I think I didn't understand everything. (I've been so tired lately that I tend to doze off after a few pages :)) I've read your thread Gladys and will come back to it when I read the ending again. You've gone through a lot of work though!! and your point of view is very valid. (Also, do you know the book by heart??? How can you come up with the righ quote everytime !!!:p

Janine have you finished yet?

Bazarov your input was of great interest, the biographical links with the novel was really interesting. Thks.

islandcliber I think I will also take your advice and read other D's novels.

how can you not like this???

"There is nothing so annoying as to be fairly rich, of a fairly good family, pleasing presence, average education, to be "not stupid," kind-hearted, and yet to have no talent at all, no originality, not a single idea of one’s own--to be, in fact, "just like everyone else." To have wealth, but not that of Rothschild’s; to be from an honoured family but that has never distinguished itself for anything relevant; to be goodlooking but with it, not expressing anything in particular; to have intelligence, but no original ideas; to have a good heart, but no soul grandiosity; to have good education, but not even know what to do with it etc etc..

For instance, when the whole essence of an ordinary person’s nature lies in his perpetual and unchangeable commonplaceness; and when in spite of all his endeavours to do something out of the common, this person ends, eventually, by remaining in his unbroken line of routine--. I think such an individual really does become a type of his own--a type of commonplaceness which will not for the world, if it can help it, be contented, but strains and yearns to be something original and independent, without the slightest possibility of being so.

Of such people there are countless numbers in this world--far more even than appear. They can be divided into two classes as all men can--that is, those of limited intellect, and those who are much cleverer. The former of these classes is the happier.

To a commonplace man of limited intellect, for instance, nothing is simpler than to imagine himself an original character, and to revel in that belief without the slightest misgiving.

Many of our young women have thought fit to cut their hair short, put on blue spectacles, and call themselves Nihilists. By doing this they have been able to persuade themselves, without further trouble, that they have acquired new convictions of their own. Some men have but felt some little qualm of kindness towards their fellow-men, and the fact has been quite enough to persuade them that they stand alone in the van of enlightenment and that no one has such humanitarian feelings as they. Others have but to read an idea of somebody else’s, and they can immediately assimilate it and believe that it was a child of their own brain. The "impudence of ignorance," if I may use the expression, is developed to a wonderful extent in such cases;--unlikely as it appears, it is met with at every turn."

this is my second favorite dostoievsky book, crime and punishment being the undisputable number one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

how can you not like this???
(...)

---

Hey, I really like that passage as well. I've actually flagged it in my book... good point D ws making there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

Hey, I really like that passage as well. I've actually flagged it in my book... good point D ws making there.

---

the difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary people is a reocurring topic in dostoievsky's writtings. one of my favourite passages of crime and punishment is precisely the one he wanders off into that topic:

"That wasn't quite my contention," he began simply and modestly. "Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so." (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) "The only difference is that I don't contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an 'extraordinary' man has the right . . . that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep . . . certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn't definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to; very well. I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound . . . to /eliminate/ the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all . . . well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed - often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law - were of use to their cause. It's remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals - more or less, of course. Otherwise it's hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are /in general/ divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter /a new word/. There are, of course, innumerable sub- divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that's their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood - that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. It's only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question). There's no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me - and /vive la guerre éternelle/ - till the New Jerusalem, of course!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

Hey everyone,

At last!!! Finished last week :thumbs_up:thumbs_up. I really loved the book even if I tend to agree that I found some passages a bit long (although I think that it might be directly linked to my own mood and energy when reading).

---

lugdunum, Good for you! I am still trailing behind you but I keep plugging away at the book each night before I go to sleep. I also think some passages are a bit long and drawn out. That might be my own fatiqued state as well.

Quote:

---

I really have to thank all of you for the great amount of work you've done. Your comments were really interesting,you all know so much that it has been/is a real pleasure reading through this thread.. I will certainly use the links provided to the spark notes.

---

That sounds good. I think I will do the same when I finish up. I also thank everyone for contributing so many great comments to this thread. I will also check out the link to the sparks notes - that may help me understand better some parts of the novel.

Quote:

---

Janine have you finished yet?

---

Nope, same like you; I start to fall asleep as soon as I read a few pages. I am hopeful to finish up soon; I really want to progress onto another novel or play.

Quote:

---

Bazarov your input was of great interest, the biographical links with the novel was really interesting. Thks.

---

Can't wait to read those, when I finish the novel.

Quote:

---

islandclimberI think I will also take your advice and read other D's novels.

---

I also want to read the 3 other ones that I recently bought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

the difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary people is a recurring topic in Dostoevsky's writings

---

The prince and Raskolinikov are extraordinary, and both show much compassion, though Raskolinikov is much less likeable.
'The Idiot' bathes the reader in joy and light, whereas 'Crime and Punishment' locks the reader away in the darkness of a dank dungeon. While a fine novel, reading the latter is akin to self-torture. More pleasant to read are such Dostoevsky novels as 'Netochka Nezvanova', 'The Village of Stepanchikovo', 'The Insulted and Injured', 'The Gambler' and 'The Brothers Karamazov'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

With regards to the ending, I must say that I was a bit disappointed, however, I'll try reading it again because I think I didn't understand everything.

---

I rarely get the ending of a great novel immediately, nor do I expect to. I also was nonplussed for some hours at the unexpected ending of 'The Idiot'. For me, understanding a Dostoevsky novel grows days or weeks after finishing. Isn't delayed gratification is part of the enjoyment of most literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

I know this is dropping back a bit in the discussion, but as I haven't posted in some time.. =p It would've been interesting to see how the rest of "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" would have turned out... Because Dostoevsky did really believe that a return to traditional Russian Orthodoxy would save the world, and like Bazatov mentioned previously, this is touched upon in TBK and the Devils.. But what is interesting is the argument against any form of religion far outweighs the argument for religion, for russian orthodoxy in particular in TBK.. Ivan destroys all Alyosha's arguments, and though Father Zossima's dying words are supposed to be somewhat of a counter to this, they really do not stand up much in the face of Ivan's powerful and depressing statements of reality, in "rebellion" and "the grand inquisitor" I think are the two chapters... Ivan is terribly disillusioned and it seems as though anyone conscious or aware of surroundings would also be disillusioned by religion and the lack of harmony it allows in the universe.. especially on the idea of forgiveness..

---

House of The Deads is also very good.

islandclimber, I regret he never wrote "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" till end.

But, he didn't attack ''any form'' of religion in TBK. If you remember from those two chapters you named correctly, he attacked Roman Church. Grand Inquisitor is in Sevilla, and Richard was initiated in Roman Church; he never mentions Russian Orthodoxy. In Rebellion, Ivan asks Alyosha what to do with that man and Alyosha states:''Kill him...'' And Ivan laughs...Not to religion, maybe only to Alyosha.

Matthew, chapter 22 ;

Quote:

---

14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

---

Alyosha is not chosen, and he realizes it later.

Quote:

---

"The Idiot" is so interesting because it is the opposite... the Prince is portrayed as a Christ figure and self-martyred in a sense just like Christ, he embraces his sacrifice willingly for the better of everyone... A very depressing ending but nevertheless an interesting ending... is there redemption in belief in Christ shown here??? hard to say...

---

TBK was his last novel, so there could not be a redemption to a Christ in Idiot, only the opposite. But, we know that it's not like that.
Also, similar to Fathers and Sons; where Bazarov died, in TBK Ivan also dies. Their death does not show only death of one man, more fall of idea. Alyosha stays, with his kindness and desire for helping and loving others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

House of The Deads is also very good.

islandclimber, I regret he never wrote "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" till end.

But, he didn't attack ''any form'' of religion in TBK. If you remember from those two chapters you named correctly, he attacked Roman Church. Grand Inquisitor is in Sevilla, and Richard was initiated in Roman Church; he never mentions Russian Orthodoxy. In Rebellion, Ivan asks Alyosha what to do with that man and Alyosha states:''Kill him...'' And Ivan laughs...Not to religion, maybe only to Alyosha.

Matthew, chapter 22 ;

Alyosha is not chosen, and he realizes it later.



TBK was his last novel, so there could not be a redemption to a Christ in Idiot, only the opposite. But, we know that it's not like that.
Also, similar to Fathers and Sons; where Bazarov died, in TBK Ivan also dies. Their death does not show only death of one man, more fall of idea. Alyosha stays, with his kindness and desire for helping and loving others.

---

yes, you're right Bazarov.. I was making much too wide a generalization... he was just attacking the roman catholic church... for the most part... and suggesting he was attacking all christian religion is quite the mistake :( Ivan doesn't die in TBK, or I don't remember this??? his idea dies when he loses his mind though, as Bazarov's idea in F&S dies when he dies...

thank you for correcting my mistake.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

yes, you're right Bazarov.. I was making much too wide a generalization... he was just attacking the roman catholic church... for the most part... and suggesting he was attacking all christian religion is quite the mistake :( Ivan doesn't die in TBK, or I don't remember this??? his idea dies when he loses his mind though, as Bazarov's idea in F&S dies when he dies...

thank you for correcting my mistake.. :)

---

Ufff:p, thank you also on correcting my mistake. Ivan didn't die, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I am hopeful to finish up soon

---

How are you going, Janine?

I am missing a continuation of the running commentary you provided us on the first half of the novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

How are you going, Janine?

I am missing a continuation of the running commentary you provided us on the first half of the novel.

---

Ah...so sorry for taking so long. I have never struggled so towards an ending. Thanks for not forgetting me, Gladys. I will definitely finish up tonight or tomorrow. I have only about 22 pages left to go; so I am anxious to finish and comment. I had a cold for a few weeks, so that it made it hard to concentrate or if I did, I had to read this novel slowly, in order to fully absorb it. Wow, there is a lot there to discuss.
Let me just ask, what do you all think of the consumptive youth, Ippolit? So often he is featured in this story. He is definitely a prominent character. He seems very complex.

I still don't know what to make or Aglaia or her actions. She miffs me somewhat. How old is she suppose to be? I was a bit confused about the meeting of her and Nataysia at the house, face to face, and their words in front of the two men. Why did not Rozoghin get furious when she was left with Myshkin? Is that a stupid question? I thought he would be insanely jealous of Myshkin or by now does he despise Nataysia?

Does anyone know the year that this story is taking place? or the time period - is it mid to late 1800's or later? I can't get any true sense of the time this story is set in.

Yeah! Last night I finished the book! I have to go out today but later I will read the posts in this thread. The ending was truly strange, but good I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

The prince and Raskolinikov are extraordinary, and both show much compassion, though Raskolinikov is much less likeable.
'The Idiot' bathes the reader in joy and light, whereas 'Crime and Punishment' locks the reader away in the darkness of a dank dungeon. While a fine novel, reading the latter is akin to self-torture. More pleasant to read are such Dostoevsky novels as 'Netochka Nezvanova', 'The Village of Stepanchikovo', 'The Insulted and Injured', 'The Gambler' and 'The Brothers Karamazov'.

---

the gambler is wonderful, although its evident the difference youll find in the depth of the whole story in comparison to later books. and that unexpected ending is so shocking you cant help but think "how could you fool me like that!"
buy yeah, agree with you that crime and punishment and the idiot are mood paradoxes, but i think the great catch about the idiot is the irony on the tittle, because although the prince is seen by everyone as the idiot, hes actually the wisest one amongst that circle of social insanity, dont you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

the gambler is wonderful...and that unexpected ending is so shocking

---

That the young Alexei Ivanovich runs off to Paris to be with Madamoiselle Blanche De Cominges, in the ending of 'The Gambler', is surely the most shocking transition I have read. Years after reading, I am still reeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

although the prince is seen by everyone as the idiot, he's actually the wisest one amongst that circle of social insanity, don't you think.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

what do you all think of the consumptive youth, Ippolit?

---

He is impossible to like, and yet the prince comes to love him. Later in the novel, Rogozhin proves even less likeable. I ended up seeing both through the eyes of the prince.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I still don't know what to make or Aglaya or her actions. She miffs me somewhat. How old is she supposed to be? I was a bit confused about the meeting of her and Nataysia at the house, face to face, and their words in front of the two men. Why did not Rozoghin get furious when she was left with Myshkin? Is that a stupid question? I thought he would be insanely jealous of Myshkin or by now does he despise Nataysia?

---

The young Aglaya gravely misconstrues both Nastasya Filippovna and the prince. The prince agrees to marriage with the Nastasya through compassion for two lost souls - for neurotic Nastasya and murderous Rogozhin - even though Myshkin truly dreads both. His motive is to save Nastasya from despair and Rogozhin from anarchy. He fails, sacrificing himself.

Aglaya is assertive, ardent and loyal, but lacking in intuition. Her love for the Prince could only have been defeated, by the awesome (almost divine) sacrifice the prince suddenly makes in the hope of saving Roghozin and Nastasya from despair or worse. Can Aglaya, or indeed anybody, be expected to recognise selfless love of such magnitude? If Aglaya had stayed longer in the house of Nastasya Filippovna, the prince would have explained his motives to the floundering Aglaya, giving her strength enough to refuse, later on, a disastrous Polish adventure.

Roghozin does not get furious at the engagement because the adamant Nastasya Filippovna is not to be trifled with. Remember what she did with his hundred thousand roubles!

[QUOTE=Gladys;631972]That the young Alexei Ivanovich runs of to Paris to be with Madamoiselle Blanche De Cominges, in the ending of 'The Gambler', is surely the most shocking transition I have read. Years after reading, I am still reeling. [QUOTE]

nononononoNO!
maybe it was only me, but throughout the whole book i never realised alexei was the vicious gambler. along the story he is always wandering off about "the gamblers", and he makes you look at "them", and not at him. the very last page is simply amazing, because its when i realised he also had no idea it was him, and not just the "others".

I read all the posts - all eight pages and thought everyone did a fine job in discussing this novel. It helped now to read these comments but I had to skirt around the other books mentioned since I want to read some of those and don't want to know the ending.

Gladys, your commentary in it's own thread was great and very helpful, insightful. I will repost it for everyone here; it is so well written; I commend !

For anyone interested in my take on the ending:

SPOILER: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=34352

Now I am exhausted. I voted, but immediately wished I could change my vote to the hightest in the poll - sorry about that. I guess I held back some, since as I stated before, I did find some passages a bit long-winded. However, this is a novel I would highly recommend to others. It is a very unique story and I liked how everyone commented about the Christ parellels, throughout this thread; Gladys even quoting some scripture from the bible. I will try to add some more commentary tomorrow. I desire to read some online commentary or the Sparks Notes as well. I am tired now so I am going to relax and watch a film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

i never realised alexei was the vicious gambler

---

It only now occurs to me that Alexei Ivanovich's biggest gamble was running off to Paris with capricious Blanche!

haha, discussion over dostoievsky will never end!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

haha, discussion over dostoievsky will never end!

---

haha....and I hope it doesn't. That means this is a good group and the book is a very though-provoking story. I know with me, all of this is sinking in now. I found myself forming some questions in my head last night. I hope to post those later tonight.

Now when Janine is over:D

In 1848 Dostoevsky was sentenced to death. He was part Petrashevich group; socialists utopists and on one meeting he read ''Letter to Gogol'' by Belinsky ( he was arbitrum elegantiarum in those days Russia) and the was the reason for death penalty. Execution should have been public, but in the last moment it was changed to 4 years in Siberia(described lately in Memories From The House of Dead) and 4 years in exile.

In 1864 his wife and his brother died; he decided to pay off all his brother's debts and it almost ruined him, and also he started to gamble.

In 1867 he went to Geneva, saw Holbein's picture ''Death Christ'' and says to his wife:''From picture like this, man could lose his faith!''

He starts to write ''Idiot''. His first idea of the story was much different from it's final. He imagined 2 families, he considered to be normal for his time; they were falling apart, morally and financialy. One was fallen noble family, father
general who spend all his property abroad, and returned to Russia to live the rest of his life, mother, ''women worth of every respect, very generous but cranky'', families favorite - elder son,'' pretty boy, totally dandy, but would like to be original'', younger son who nobody likes - Idiot; and adopted and dumped Minyona. Second family: father ''reprobate'', friend with first father from scholar day, mother who is also friend with first mother, one is noble type and the other is type of clerk's wife, their daughter ''hero, pretty boy fiancee, arrogant and incredibly pretty girl''

In September of 1867, in newspapers he read about proces against Umecky family, because of ''overusing parents rights'' and against their 15 years old daughter Olga who tried to burn their house 4 times from revenge. Pairing Olga Umecka and Minyona he got Nastasya Filipovna.
Character of the Idiot was quite changed from first idea to final Prince Myshkin. Original Idiot was ''insulted, arrogant, with no measure in good or evil, he seeks resurrection in arrogancy''. Main idea of the novel was:''What a power, what a passion in todays youth, but still they don't believe in nothing. Unlimited idealism with unlimited sensualism.''
In newspapers he read an article about a man who killed another man because of golden watch saying:''God, please forgive me!'' and he mentioned it in novel. Name of the village was Myshkin.

On November 22nd of 1867, he destroyed his whole work on novel, next 15 days spends creating new ideas ''he was changing plans 6 times per day'' and on December 12th, he started final version. Main idea for final version was:'' I have one idea in my head and it bothers me for quite a long time, but I never tried to make a novel from it, because that idea is too heavy and I am not ready for it, although is very tempting and I like it very much. The idea is - to describe absolutely beautiful man. Nothing can be harder then that, in my opinion, especially in now days...That idea already happened in my mind, partly though; and I needed total form! Only my desperate position made me to write it now; I took a risk like on roulette, hope it will end well.''

He wrote a letter to his sister's daughter, to who he dedicated idiot:''Main idea is to describe absolutely beautiful man. Nothing can be harder then that, in my opinion, especially in now days. All writers, not only Russian but from whole Europe tried, but every time failed to describe absolute beauty. That task is extremely hard. Beauty is ideal, and ideal - not only ours, but from whole Europe is not even closely reached. Only one creature on this world is absolutely beautiful, and that's Christ, so existence of that endlessly beautiful creature is truly a miracle. From all beautiful literatures in Christians literature Don Quijote is mostly precise, but he is wonderful just because he is funny. Dickens's Pickwick (although not good like Don Quijote) is also funny and that's the only reason why readers like him. Readers feel pity to that beauty because it's funny and it doesn't realize how worth it really is. In that pitiness lies humor. Jean Valjean is also good try, but sympathy toward him comes from his great lack of happiness and society's unfairness to him. my hero has nothing of that, so I am afraid I will fail.''

Pretty boy family was idea for family Ivolgin - Ganya, general, Kolya, Varya and her fiance Pticin, and pretty boy fiancee was a model for Aglaya. Nastasya got attributes of all four woman main characters from original version. Rogozhin was the only of main characters who wasn't mentioned in original version. Still, he has many attributes of original Idiot, at least his bad sides ( good ones went to Myshkin). Another event affected on Rogozhin's character. In Moscow, young merchant Mazurin got 2 million rublya's after father's death but he spend them quickly. One night, he calls jewelery Kalmikov to his home and kills him with razor. He covered him with oilcloth, put four tanks containing disinfectant around him and it layed their like that for months in house where he lived with his old mother.

First part of the novel had great effect on readers, so did second and the third, but ''I am afraid for the last part, it must be great; whole story was written just because of the last part!''
Novel was finished in November of 1869.''I am unsatisfied with novel, it does not express even tenth of what I wanted to express. Still, I won't throw it away; I like my fallen idea equal.''