September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky

[wilbur lim]

Oh my mickitaz,you had finished reading the book!!!!!!

[bazarov]

I agree with Prince Muishken being portrayed at "Jesus" in a sense. You see the imagry as far as his being described in light colors, a childlike expression and such. What I also find interesting, is we experience other character's houses... The Epanchin's estate, Rogojins's house, even Hippolyte's room. But not once, (so far at least) do we have a description of the prince's house.

In train, Prince answered to Rogozhin that he doesn't have a house or anything in Peterburg and he's not sure where he will stay.
A total stranger in every aspect.

[mickitaz]

In train, Prince answered to Rogozhin that he doesn't have a house or anything in Peterburg and he's not sure where he will stay.
A total stranger in every aspect.

Right.. that was at the beginning of the book. I was referring towards the middle, after he finds out he inherited a sizable fortune. Our narrator indicates that Prince went abroad for several months to set his affairs in order.

I find it interesting that while we get a description of General Involgin's house and summer house, Roginin's house, even Lebedef's establishment; not once is it mentioned that the Prince made some sort of dwelling place his.

Yes, during his travels he stayed with many friends. I find also a similarity that people enjoy his stories. Someone mentioned here during chat, that they felt Dostoevsky used the Prince as a sounding board for all his own political and religious views. To this I agree. However, this ties in to the preacher/Jesus analogy.

[mickitaz]

Oh my mickitaz,you had finished reading the book!!!!!!

Yep.. .finished the book. However, I seemed to have paid a price Somehow, from reading so much the one night, I gave myself a muscle spasm in my neck. Went to the doctor and now I am on muscle relaxer's and going for physical therapy.. I am such a geek sometimes.

[Gladys]

I couldn't help but think of the similarities in character between herself and Madame Bovary. I disdained both of them in such a strain...Oh!

Unlike 'the idiot', you didn't like Nastasya Filippovna?

[mickitaz]

Unlike 'the idiot', you didn't like Nastasya Filippovna?

No, I didn't like Nastasia. She was a shrewd woman who played men till she was tired of them. She used each and every one of them to her advantage. However, she just wasn't quite smart enough though. Since Roginin ended her reign.

Aglaya was different. She was afraid of how others viewed her actions, so she acted one way, and felt another. I really was quite surprised as to her reaction to loosing the Prince. To be honest, I thought she was just playing a mean joke on him by going along with the proposal. But after you hear of her reaction to him leaving her at Natasia's; it was truly heart breaking.

Natasia was just an empty shell of a woman; spreading her infection to all those around her. Ugh!

[Gladys]

No, I didn't like Nastasia. She was a shrewd woman who played men till she was tired of them.

Oh, so unkind, Mickitaz.

Nastasya Filippovna is a tragic shell of woman who has lost all self-respect, in part, through the shameless paedophilia of her guardian, Totski. She's only good enough for the terrible Roghozin! The prince hopes he can save her from herself. But, no. Twice, on the eve of their wedding, the sinner flees from the pure and unadulterated light of ‘the idiot’. A 'worthless creature', she finally sacrifices herself!

Aglaya, tragically, understands none of this.

[Miss Adams]

I read it, loved it, and am now tempted to reread it. I actually memorized lines from chapters. When you read Dostoevsky, you feel you could paint the imagery he gives. Vivid, funny, and thought provoking. Don't hurry through it.

[Alexei]

I would like to join the reading ad well. Still I will need some time to catch up because I started reading today. I hope this isn't going to be a problem?

[bazarov]

I would like to join the reading ad well. Still I will need some time to catch up because I started reading today. I hope this isn't going to be a problem?

Yes, I also just started...

But that was enough to remind me...

I believe that to execute a man for murder is to punish him immeasurably more dreadfully than is equivalent to his crime. A murder by sentence is far more dreadful than a murder committed by a criminal. The man who is attacked by robbers at night, in a dark wood, or anywhere, undoubtedly hopes and hopes that he may yet escape until the very moment of his death. There are plenty of instances of a man running away, or imploring for mercy--at all events hoping on in some degree--even after his throat was cut. But in the case of an execution, that last hope--having which it is so immeasurably less dreadful to die,--is taken away from the wretch and certainty substituted in its place! There is his sentence, and with it that terrible certainty that he cannot possibly escape death--which, I consider, must be the most dreadful anguish in the world. You may place a soldier before a cannon's mouth in battle, and fire upon him--and he will still hope. But read to that same soldier his death-sentence, and he will either go mad or burst into tears. Who dares to say that any man can suffer this without going mad? No, no! it is an abuse, a shame, it is unnecessary--why should such a thing exist? Doubtless there may be men who have been sentenced, who have suffered this mental anguish for a while and then have been reprieved; perhaps such men may have been able to relate their feelings afterwards. Our Lord Christ spoke of this anguish and dread. No! no! no! No man should be treated so, no man, no man!"

...what a great book this is!

It's amazing how often people care for behavior toward animals, and do things like this to humans

[Janine]

Wow, two pages already. From what I have read so far on this thread, I am interested in reading it, even though I did not vote for it. It was however, on my reading list for the near future. I have to finish another book and hope to join in before the month is through. I purchased the book a few months back; been curious to read it.

[bazarov]

What is even more interesting, is at the party of the prince's birthday Lebedeff goes off on a tangent, first describing the Apocolypse, then going into a general description of Satan. Specifically, he states that Satan probably doesn't look like the monster with the horns as society has built, but rather like a regular human being.

In Brothers Karamazov, Ivan speaks with Devil and Devil states:''Satan sum, et nihil humanum ame alienum puto''....I am Satan, and nothing human isn't strange to me.

You're too harsh on Nastasya; her behavior is just a reflection of male actions toward her.

[qspeechc]

Read the book about a year ago.

Is there anything to be made of Myshkin's long talks about death, that he particularly makes in the earlier parts of the book. Particularly as he is portayed as a Jesus-like person. Maybe it's just me that picked up on this irrelevant point.

I couldn't understand why Myshkin left Aglaya for Nastasya. Perhaps because the saviour is needed most in the sinner's house, and in fact Aglaya has no need for redemption. Or do I sound like a buffoon? I am still pondering over the ending.

[bazarov]

That's a true happening from Dostoevsky's life.
No, you're right; Nastasya was more in need. She was really unhappy, Aglaya was more like stupid adolescent.

[_Shannon_]

Does anyone know if Myshkin's views of the death penalty/guillotine were concordant with Dostoyevsky's views??

(Yes--I am just starting )