September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky

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.