Fyodor Dostoevsky - Idiot

[Gladys]

I can't accept the view that Prince Myshkin ultimately fails, any more than Jesus can be said to have failed. Physically, humanly speaking, of course both do fail, but this is as nothing. We should no more characterize Myshkin's life as failure than millennia of Christians would Christ's. The spirit of both men lives on - triumphantly!

Jesus, the God-man, didn't save himself before Pilate for our sakes, and is crucified, and soon resurrected with a spiritual body. Myshkin, merely a man, doesn't save himself for he returns again to Nastasya Filippovna (there's no romantic love here) for her sake and for Roghozin. And Myshkin too is crucified, socially and mentally, by his peers. And he too is resurrected in an essentially spiritual way, appearing briefly to Vera Lebedev, Lizabetha Prokofievna, and Evgenie Pavlovitch.

As for success in this life, tangible and timely, both Jesus and Myshkin achieve nothing. But Dostoevsky asks us to see a bigger picture.

Dostoevsky's ending are generally dodgy, excepting the gambler and TBK to some extent.

Yet even in The Gambler, it is astonishing beyond belief when Alexei Ivanovich, of all people, runs off to Paris with the pragmatic siren, Mademoiselle Blanche De Cominges!

[JCamilo]

Sucess or failure is not a theme of the book. And more, we can see what happened with the world after Jesus and we will never see the fictional world of the Prince after his death. It is open and considering Dostoievisky saw negative aspects on Christian societies,any conclusion he thinks in terms of sucess is far to optimistic.

The bigger picture is obviously that any individual could be the Prince. He is an example, not his story. We know if he "suffers" in the end is not because of his own good, it is because the evil in society.

Anyways, the Gambler ending is so open that even space and time still open. Considering the conditions that dostoievisky faced to write it,it is more natural this way.

[Gladys]

Success or failure is not a theme of the book. And more, we can see what happened with the world after Jesus and we will never see the fictional world of the Prince after his death. It is open and considering Dostoievisky saw negative aspects on Christian societies,any conclusion he thinks in terms of success is far to optimistic.

Any success I see is not in the world at large - neither Myshkin nor Jesus are so ambitious - but rather in the lives of a few. Isn't that enough?

Matthew 7:14___Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 22:14___For many are called, but few are chosen.

[JCamilo]

Jesus is supposed to redeem all humankind. Not just a few. Let's not transfer Jesus to The Idiot, it is a model, as much a Quixote is, but not the samething. Plus, Dostoievisky does not believe all christianity is correct, so, beliving he is claiming the Prince had absolute success to change the society Dostoievisky kept accusing of several flaws is a long stretch.

Anyways, since he is not a true idiot, the Prince does not need (as suggested) to learn or to succeed, he just is (Just like his "double" just is). If you want we can say the end shows the success of Vera, ou Evgenie, etc to understand the Prince and the failure of others who do not. An open end, both good and happy as evil and sad.

[Theunderground]

I hear you both. But i think even spiritual happiness/success is individual not universal. Surely true love can only apply to individuals and not humanity carte blanche. My biggest argument against loving all mankind is that it degrades true individual love.

[JCamilo]

I see your point. One of themes of Dostoievisky is Individual vs. Society. But the Prince as individual does not fail, he is already one step ahead of others. If he has a failure is "social".

But my point it is that you should consider his success beyond his own "lifetime" (or book length).

[Gladys]

Surely true love can only apply to individuals and not humanity carte blanche. My biggest argument against loving all mankind is that it degrades true individual love.

Quite so. The prince simply loves his neighbour: she in greatest need. And his success in love does continue beyond his lifetime in the sense that, "his brain fatally injured", he engenders "a growing feeling of friendship and sympathy" with Evgenie Pavlovitch, of all people.

As the novel begins, Nastasya Filippovna is in greatest need. Then, among others, Ippolit and Aglaya but, most of all, Rogozhin! It's no coincidence that the novel essentially begins and ends with Rogozhin.

As regards Jesus, Christendom and saving all humanity, Dostoevsky takes a similar line to the Danish existentialist genius, Soren Kierkegaard, whose individualist perspective is manifest:

Luke 18:8___And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth??

[Theunderground]

So the neighbour is the greatest in need? And what if i have a family or partner? Are they not first regardless of the 'need' of the neighbour?
Why the preoccupation with saving certain 'neighbours' to the exclusion of a real commitment to one person?

[JCamilo]

Neighbour in this case is the next person, any person and love in this case belongs to the realm of ethics.

So, you can love one person in both ways, but the idea is that your question is pretty much the key question of dostoievisky, how to balance it. No definite answer, the prince, as us, fail and succed at the sametime.

[Theunderground]

Yes,that makes sense. Dostoevsky has 'posed' a question and left it indeterminate or for us to decide. He tends to be excellentin that sense as an artist. And alludes to various alternative interpretations. I think he himself admitted the impossibility of potraying the 'perfectly good' man sucessfully. Alyosha is more like it.

[JCamilo]

Yes, what makes Brothers K so powerful is that it seems like Dostoievisky looks back to his best works and manages to make a work where he brings all the best elements in those previous stories to a single, more polished Diamond.

[Buh4Bee]

Just a few thoughts concerning this book:

I have skimmed the thread as to avoid spoilers. I am not quite half way through and I feel like the pace is awfully slow. I am also still working on this theme of the Prince Myshkin being an idiot, even though he is very intelligent. I have just read the part in which Myshkin and Rogozhin exchange crosses. I suppose the prince is a fool for believing in this murderer and considering him like a brother. I guess that the prince symbolizes a certain level of innocence and faith in all of humanity that we can redeem ourselves, even if we are evil.

[Gladys]

You're on the right track and, be assured, the pace does begin to quicken about now.

[cacian]

I hear you both. But i think even spiritual happiness/success is individual not universal. Surely true love can only apply to individuals and not humanity carte blanche. My biggest argument against loving all mankind is that it degrades true individual love.

Hi Theunderground how does love for mankind degrade true individual love?
In fact what is true love?
Love and true love is there a difference?
To love everyone it is a ridiculous concept.
To love oneself is more important and I think that is where the failure is not on society but on the individual who does not know how to love themselves.

[cacian]

Luke 18:8___And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth??

Galdys reading through this the word 'avenge' caught my eye.
It left me with this thought:
Avenge usually means ransom anger and the need to take revenge because one does not know nor understand how to settle differences or even forget or forgive.
Is god this avengful character? full of remorse to the point of unforgiveness? I am not sure.