September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky

[Gladys]

The commentaries describe this novel as a "clash between good and the real world", with Prince Myshkin representing "good". Rogozhin is apparently the representation of evil and Natasya Fillipovna is "wallowing in self blame". The society which we are invited to voyeur is materialistic, superficial and deceitful. The general outcome of the novel is said to be along the lines of Prince Myshkin was just too beautiful for this world and was therefore destroyed by it.

Here's a few facts. Prince Myshkin is unalloyed 'good' but is viewed as an idiot, especially in the immediate aftermath of Nastasya Filippovna's murder. Rogozhin is 'bad', though the prince gives us a less damning insight, as he does for Ippolit. Nastasya, once the ward and concubine of Afanassy Ivanovich Totsky, feels hopelessly worthless. Prince Myshkin's veneration of the 'good', is not shared by society in Petersburg. His end seems not a happy one...or is it?

Do I have this right? Because I took a totally different reading of it.

Please tell us, Cicadamoon, about your reading of 'The Idiot'.

[cicadamoon]

I think I know how this book was meant to be read ie. Prince Myshkin is apparently good.

Dostoyevsky himself states his intention in creating this character.

At times, I do feel this --but at other places in the novel, the text has had the opposite effect on me. It's like I'm inverting/subverting the original intention of the author (unless he was just being ironic).

I know that Nietzche was influenced by Dostoyevsky, and whatever the way the intellectual influence flowed, there seems to me to be some themes that the two thinkers are working on.

Let's start with an idea which supports the contention that Prince Myshkin represents love and goodness. When Prince Myshkin responds to people as they are in the moment, he does not categorize them into "good" or "evil". He merely responds to them as they are. He does not dismiss the unruly crew that barge in on his party to demand payment--he deals with them respectfully. He does not seem to be concerned with social norms or conventional classifications--and in this way he is truly Christ like. And he is living the way Christ described in the story of the Good Samaritan ie. doing what he is moved to do, not what he thinks would be profitable (materially or morally). He is simply not making these types of judgements.

Well, we can definitely learn a lot from that approach! How many wars, interpersonal or international arise from judgements and classifications of people's actions! And yet, judgements and classifications are how we make sense of our world--or perhaps it is the way of thinking that accompanies the entire spirit of these "last centuries" (think back to Lebedev's speech about railways and the positivist/materialist non spiritual approach which grows parallel to industrialisation). Is Dostoyevsky pointing his finger at the folly of the very underpinnings of the thought emergent at that time? If so, then we are the inheritors of that thought today--caught in the endless categorisations of us/the other, good/bad and positive/negative etc.

Nietzche's thoughts on love were similar to this, ie. that which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil and that since "good" and "evil" are unnatural categories, instead we should value that which is life giving and condemn that which is life denying.

Now, if we invert this back onto ourselves--we have to question why we, as the reader are determined to create classifications of good=Prince Myshkin and bad=Rogozhin!

And if we are going to use this approach, then we need to seriously question whether Prince Myshkin had a life giving or a life denying effect on those around him.

And judging from the fate of them, Prince Myshkin inadvertently had a life denying effect. Although he tries to help characters like General Ivolgin, Natasya Filipovna and Aglaya, he drives them to destruction!

In this way, he reminds me of Gregers Werle in Henrik Ibsen's The Wild Duck. Gregers is idealistic and is determined to bring truth and enlightenment to the shadows and dark places. His efforts bring about the destruction of a formerly functional little family and the death of a little girl.

While he lacks the striving characteristic of Gregers Werle, he still has a destructive effect on these characters. Why?

General Ivolgin--In this case he listens to General Ivolgin and doesn't challenge him on his version of his story. He effectively gives General Ivolgin enough rope to strangle himself with his own lies. His inability to challenge General Ivolgin leads General Ivolgin to feel absolute and irrevocable shame, from which there is no return.

Wouldn't there have been a kinder response?

Nietzche refers to the necessity of acting destructively in order to enable life. He suggests that Uberman should not be afraid to inflict pain when it is needed, like a skilled surgeon. I would suggest that this would be a case where a truly Christ like figure would have had the courage to challenge the General to face his situation face on, so that he could maintain his pride.

Natasya Filliopovna--have you ever been pitied? Or given charity? It is not a great feeling. Could you imagine a dynamic woman like Natasya being pitied? Once again, Natasya needed a real man who could challenge her bouts of childish selfishness and bring her back into her own strength. Pity never does this--it invites more shame. I probably would have done the same thing as Natasya!

Aglaya--he never really loved her with power. He just responded to her overtures. He was largely ineffectual. Would you want to marry a man who, when pressed for a commitment, just crushes down? He cheated her of a real proposal, he just went along with whatever the family seemed to want. He floated in the wind. When Aglaya wanted some sort of show that he really loved her, he just waffled between the two women. What kind of love is that? And then he humiliated her. It's not like he was aware of the materialism and shallowness of the society and strove to overcome it, he just didn't seem to get it at all! The thing that makes a hero is that he is aware of circumstances and he overcomes them. Prince Myshkin just wasn't aware of circumstances!

There is no neat way to end this...it is just a few thoughts I've been having about this novel. And I'll look forward to your responses which will hopefully either contribute to this reading of the text, or which will challenge me to clarify my thinking!

[Gladys]

Wow, that’s some post, Cicadamoon!

I know that Nietzsche was influenced by Dostoyevsky

Are you aware that both (and Ibsen) were heavily influenced great Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard - the ‘father of Existentialism’ and unordained priest, who died 15 years before the publication of 'The Idiot'?

If so, then we are the inheritors of that thought today--caught in the endless categorisations of us/the other, good/bad and positive/negative etc.

Absolutely true. Kierkegaard's philosophical enemy was the 'system', a philosophical ‘theory of everything’, proposed by the German idealist philosopher, Hegel. And Lebedev is an enthusiastic advocate.

Now, if we invert this back onto ourselves--we have to question why we, as the reader are determined to create classifications of good=Prince Myshkin and bad=Rogozhin!

Certainly Prince Myshkin, living from moment to moment, would not have recognised or understood these classifications. (I use them to communicate with those that seem to.) Focused on the moment, Prince Myshkin has ‘a life giving...effect on those around him’ because he trusts in the wisdom of Scripture: ‘Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof’.

And judging from the fate of them, Prince Myshkin inadvertently had a life denying effect. Although he tries to help characters like General Ivolgin, Natasya Filipovna and Aglaya, he drives them to destruction!

Life denial for them was inevitable, without the prince’s intervention. In these almost hopeless situations – as with Ippolit - the prince intervenes out of love and hope, not counting the cost for himself. But is he not ‘life giving’ towards Evgenie Pavlovitch, Lizabetha Prokofievna and Vera Lebedev, in the closing chapter?

In this way, he reminds me of Gregers Werle in Henrik Ibsen's 'The Wild Duck'. Gregers is idealistic and is determined to bring truth and enlightenment to the shadows and dark places.

Your parallel seems upside-down: the prince is no idealist – each moment is a ‘work of love’ (in the words of Kierkegaard). Dostoevsky’s counterpart for Gregers Werle is the idealist, Lebedev. Neither of them lives in the moment: both zealously advocate a ‘system’, and both tend to do damage.

In this case he listens to General Ivolgin and doesn't challenge him on his version of his story. He effectively gives General Ivolgin enough rope to strangle himself with his own lies…a truly Christ like figure would have had the courage to challenge the General to face his situation face on.

Doesn’t the prince's inaction do exactly that, and much more effectively than your ‘Uberman’? In your own words, the prince’s inaction (his indirect challenge) ‘leads General Ivolgin to feel absolute and irrevocable shame’. That ‘there is no return’ for the general, reflects the gutless choice he makes. This fragile general is responsible for his salvation: the prince is powerless. (Incidentally, I have trouble finding this passage in the novel.)

Could you imagine a dynamic woman like Natasya being pitied? Once again, Natasya needed a real man who could challenge her bouts of childish selfishness and bring her back into her own strength.

The pitying prince offers love, not pity. You expect too much from ‘a real man’: in my experience, such a direct challenge, if it succeeds at all, could take decades. For now, the prince accepts her as is.

He floated in the wind. When Aglaya wanted some sort of show that he really loved her, he just waffled between the two women. What kind of love is that? And then he humiliated her. It's not like he was aware of the materialism and shallowness of the society and strove to overcome it, he just didn't seem to get it at all! The thing that makes a hero is that he is aware of circumstances and he overcomes them. Prince Myshkin just wasn't aware of circumstances!

I couldn’t agree less. You imagine the prince an idiot, a simpleton, whereas he has divine wisdom in his dealing with the two women...with everyone. I suggest you read my other posts on Aglaya is this thread and in the following:

www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17436
www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30780
www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34352

I much enjoyed reading your sparkling post.

[cicadamoon]

I cannot tell you how fun it is to talk with you about this! So much more rewarding to be able to really discuss and wrestle with ideas from a novel as rich as this one--than just unreflectively moving on to the next novel.

I'll look forward to spending some serious time on your response. But right now I'm flying off to work etc.

I'm already thinking of borrowing a book about or by Kierkegaard in the library on my afternoon rounds today.

Thank you so much, Gladys!

Cicadamoon

[Gladys]

I'm already thinking of borrowing a book about or by Kierkegaard

While Kierkegaard's 'true Christian' is the inspiration for Dostoevsky's Prince Myshkin, it is almost the direct subject matter of Ibsen's play 'Brand', his first acclaimed success. ‘Brand’ is an epic poem about a young priest Brand and his wife Agnes, who are radical and heroic in their ‘naught or all’ struggle of the will, towards death.

The translator Miguel Unamuno has written, "...if I began the study of Danish translating Ibsen's Brand, it has been the works of Kierkegaard, his spiritual father, that have made me especially glad to have learned it." Disclaiming knowledge of Kierkegaard, Ibsen once said he 'had read very little and understood even less'.

Be warned: unlike 'Brand', the philosophical works of Kierkegaard can be difficult reading.

[cicadamoon]

What is interesting is how rich this novel is, that it can inspire a spirited discussion by two people on different sides of the world so many years after publication! I enjoyed reading your response to my commentaries on the novel--in my gut, I remain unconvinced by the comparison of Prince Myshkin to Christ.

I do take your point, that Myshkin is not idealistically driven, like Werle.

Haven't had time to follow up on that fascinating lead about Kierkegaard yet. So ridiculously busy.

What are you reading now?

Cicadamoon

[bazarov]

What is interesting is how rich this novel is, that it can inspire a spirited discussion by two people on different sides of the world so many years after publication!

This forum exists because of that fact, not only this thread. Welcome!

[Janine]

This forum exists because of that fact, not only this thread. Welcome!

I had to stop reading the posts, because I noticed you were comparing the other D's novels, and giving some of the plot away too, and I have not read them, but plan to; and I don't want to spoil the endings for myself. I did that with "The Idiot" and then I lost some bit of interest in the book for awhile, even though I liked it and did finish it. I wished I had not know the exact ending, even though one could guess at it at a certain part of the book.

Just wanted to let everyone know, that is why I have not kept up with this discussion. If anything comes to me I will just randomly post about it but to read your posts is too revealing about the other novels. So I have to stay clear of here for now. After I read the other novels - "The Brothers K" and "Crime and Punishment", I will come back and review all of your posts. I appreciate how much everyone has written.

Yes, I say "Welcome" too to cicadamoon - this forum is a great place.

[Gladys]

I enjoyed reading your response to my commentaries on the novel--in my gut, I remain unconvinced by the comparison of Prince Myshkin to Christ.

Perhaps you misconstrue me. Unlike others on this thread, I have deliberately refrained from making such a comparison. Nevertheless I am convinced that Dostoevsky has used the Gospel narratives both as an inspiration and, to a limited extent, a framework for the writing of "The Idiot". He's not the first to do so.

Can we agree that Prince Myshkin is in some ways Christ-like, as I'm sure are many other characters in literature?

[cicadamoon]

Yes, likely I did misunderstand. I'm really running too fast in other areas of my life and possibly I need to spend more time pondering the thoughtful responses here. But, it's hard to slow down.

Regardless of whether he is actually "Christ like" (as the cover of my book --a Bantam Classic--seems to indicate by the crucifix tied to him and the eerily "spiritual"glowing blue eyes) or just a "truly beautiful soul" (the quote by Dostoevsky on the back of this Bantam edition)--I probably wouldn't want Prince Myshkin as my friend.

Let's look at the "good" things first:

He cuts to the significant, he doesn't get taken off course by class consciousness or petit politics. This we see both on the train at the beginning of the novel and also during the dinner party held by the Epanchins to introduce him as a suitor for Aglaia.

He is detached from material concerns ie. when he thought that he was entering Russia penniless, he seemed unconcerned by it and when he came into a fortune, it didn't change him or his attitude in the least. In this way, he held the enviable position of being at the centre of the wheel of fortune!

Mind you, this could just be the ignorance of a fellow that has never experienced poverty and has no idea the consequences...

He is compassionate with the people who come and demand money from him and lie about it.

He doesn't strive to affect people one way or another. He isn't constantly judging them and finding them lacking--he takes people as they are...Or does he?

From his own speech (Chapter 7): "... When I came back here to Petersburg, I determined that I would see the best people[emphasis mine], the people of old family, of ancient lineage, to which I belong myself, among whom I am in the front rank by birth[emphasis mine]. Now, I'm sitting with princes like myself, am I not? I wanted to get to know you , and it was necessary, very, very necessary!.. I've always heard too much that was bad about you, more than what was good; of your pettiness, the exclusiveness of your interests, your stagnation, your shallow education, and your ridiculous habits oh, so much is said and written about you! I came here to-day with curiosity, with excitement. I wanted to see for myself and make up my own mind whether this upper crust of Russian society is really good for nothing and has outlived its time,is drained of its ancient life and only fit to die, but still persists [emphasis mine] in a petty, endless strife with the men... of the future, getting in their way and not conscious that it is dying itself."

Well, he was judging them! However, despite their superficiality etc. he decides that they are wonderful and fine. He cannot see their faults. Mind you, it is ironic of him to be judging them when the whole purpose of the party is to judge him!

The thing that bothers me about him, despite all this goodness, is that he makes choices which he isn't really happy with, and either he isn't honest within himself about his emotions and his decisions or he isn't honest with the other person. This is indicated in Chapter 10--after he has "chosen" Natasya over Aglaya:

Here he admits that his love for Natasya is more like the love one would have for a "sick, unhappy child who could not be left to shift for itself". Hardly the love of a truly contented lover!

Natasya can feel that he has pity for her, but not the love of a husband for a wife and it kills her:

"...[from Myshkin's perspective] She [Natasya] was not in a state to reassure him. On the contrary, she had of late made him more and more uneasy. Till then, that is a few days before, when she saw him she made every effort to cheer him up [my emphasis] and was dreadfully afraid of his looking sad [my emphasis]. She even tried singing to him; most frequently she would tell him everything amusing she could think of. Myshkin almost always [B]pretended[my emphasis] to laugh heartily. Sometimes he did really laugh at the brilliant wit and genuine feeling with which she sometimes told stories...But now her melancholy and brooding grew more marked every hour...he genuinely believed that her recovery [my emphasis] was possible...He really seemed to look on his marriage as some insignificant formality, he held his own future so cheap...He noticed, however, that Natasya Filippovna knew and understood quite well what Aglaia meant for him. She did not speak, but he saw her "face," when she found him sometimes preparing to go to the Epanchins..."

And just before the wedding, Natasya barricades herself in her room weeping, in despair and hysterics and when Myshkin enters, she falls upon her knees before him crying "What am I doing? What am I doing? What am I doing to you?"

My heart is with Natasya. Here is a woman who strives to rise like a brilliant, beautiful and dramatic phoenix from the ashes of her childhood continued and repeated sexual abuse by a man who was supposed to be like a father to her, after the death of her own father.

She has been marred, but she could heal.

Many women have been sexually abused and have been able to rise again, however wounded they have been.

But Myshkin cannot see her heroism, her courage, her brilliance and strength. He only sees a pathetic little creature, humbled and humiliated.

By this pitying love, he keeps her caged and unable to really grow. He does not handle the situation honestly, but fakes happiness.

A woman like Natasya cannot be fooled so simply by appearances of laughter. She is deeper than that. And her reaction is understandable under the circumstances.

Actually, Myshkin manages to humiliate and ruin the lives of both Aglaya and Natasya! And for that reason, I do not find him to be a quintessential beautiful soul. I would not trust him in a friendship to be intellectually or emotionally honest.

Of course, it's just an opinion!

cicadamoon

[Natchat]

I recently finished reading The Idiot for the first time, and have many questions about many of the passages. One passage which I have given alot of thought to is the scene with Myshkin and Rogozhin as they discuss God and exchange crosses. Is the cheap tin cross that Myshkin gives to Rogozhin meant to symbolize Rogozhin's values, while the gold one which he gives to Myshkin is meant to symbolize Myshkin's pure ideals and concept of God? Also, the Holbein picture of Christ really stood out to me as a representation of the vacillating extremes between faith and doubt, though I felt there must be much more to it than that. When Rogozhin said that he liked the picture precisely because it was making him lose his faith, could that be meant to reveal humanity's nihilistic nature? Any ideas about the meaning of this passage would be appreciated.

[Gladys]

Regardless of whether he is actually "Christ like"...or just a "truly beautiful soul"...--I probably wouldn't want Prince Myshkin as my friend.

I suspect Dostoevsky would equate a "truly beautiful soul" with “Christ Like”, just as angelic Hedvig Ekdal is the sacrificial lamb in Ibsen’s "The Wild Duck". You, Cicadamoon, seem to argue that the prince is neither, giving as evidence defects in his relationship with Aglaya and Natasya Filippovna. While disputing that the text favours your interpretation, I concede that Dostoevsky is deliberately ambiguous on interactions between the prince and the two women. My evidence for the integrity of the prince follows.

Consider how Prince Myshkin is portrayed throughout the novel. He perceives the good in everyone he meets: Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky, Lebedev, General Ivolgin, Rogozhin, Ganya, Lizaveta Prokofyevna, Yevgeny Pavlovich, Ferdyshchenko, Vera Lebedev and others. Prince Myshkin treats all these with courtesy, respect, kindness, generosity and even love. So it makes little sense that he treats his two closest friends, Aglaya and Natasya Filippovna, any differently. To argue otherwise requires the strongest of textual evidence in support, whereas you have provided passages that are open to interpretation.

He doesn't strive to affect people one way or another. He isn't constantly judging them and finding them lacking--he takes people as they are...Or does he? ... ... Well, he was judging them!

At the dinner party held by the Epanchins, the prince only “judges” in that he "forms an opinion”: as would any sensible man.

The thing that bothers me about him, despite all this goodness, is that he makes choices which he isn't really happy with, and either he isn't honest within himself about his emotions and his decisions or he isn't honest with the other person.

“He makes choices which he isn't really happy with” simply because good choices in problematic situations are unavailable. Were he “honest with the other person”, disaster would ensue, as happened with the truth-speaking Gregers Werle.

Here he admits that his love for Natasya is more like the love one would have for a "sick, unhappy child who could not be left to shift for itself". Hardly the love of a truly contented lover!

The prince is vey much "a truly contented lover", although his love extends way beyond romance or passion, and acts whatever the cost to himself. The impossible dilemma, facing the prince, is how to save Aglaya and Natasya Filippovna simultaneously. With success improbable, he heroically attempts the unachievable, out of love: "he held his own future so cheap".

Natasya can feel that he has pity for her, but not the love of a husband for a wife and it kills her.

His overwhelming pity is undeniable, nevertheless, the prince does offer Natasya Filippovna "the love of a husband for a wife" but is justifiably fearful that his betrothed, Aglaya, has perceived as heartless his incredible self-sacrifice in the forlorn hope of rescuing that desperate pair: Natasya Filippovna and Rogozhin.

And just before the wedding, Natasya barricades herself in her room weeping, in despair and hysterics and when Myshkin enters, she falls upon her knees before him crying "What am I doing? What am I doing? What am I doing to you?"... ... She has been marred, but she could heal. Many women have been sexually abused and have been able to rise again, however wounded they have been.

But Myshkin cannot see her heroism, her courage, her brilliance and strength. He only sees a pathetic little creature, humbled and humiliated.

The prince sees all her positives, but what can he do? While “many women have been sexually abused and have been able to rise again”, others like Natasya Filippovna are annihilated by sexual abuse. After all, this is nineteenth century Russia with a prim Victorian morality. As an unloved and molested orphan, Natasya Filippovna has been damaged irretrievably. Perhaps she might have recovered after years of tender-loving-care, but time was a luxury she and the prince did not have.

By this pitying love, he keeps her caged and unable to really grow. He does not handle the situation honestly, but fakes happiness. A woman like Natasya cannot be fooled so simply by appearances of laughter. She is deeper than that. And her reaction is understandable under the circumstances.

Certainly, “Natasya cannot be fooled”. From the beginning, she has recognised in the prince an unbridled and selfless love that shames her to the core of her soiled and tortured soul. As Natasya Filippovna sees it, the blackness of her sin is laid bare by his pure white radiance. His fragile laughter, innocence and humility amplify her guilt and shame. She cannot finally bring herself to pollute this noble prince with the leprous contagion of her guilt and shame. The prince offers her salvation but the despairing sinner chooses instead to annihilate herself through the unlucky Rogohzin. The prince had long expected such an outcome.

Actually, Myshkin manages to humiliate and ruin the lives of both Aglaya and Natasya! And for that reason, I do not find him to be a quintessential beautiful soul. I would not trust him in a friendship to be intellectually or emotionally honest.

You do not trust him, and neither do his Russian 'friends', at the end. He is "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief". The prince ruins no one. He gives his life for his friends: Aglaya, Natasya Filippovna and Rogozhin. But to no avail.

An idiot?

Also, the Holbein picture of Christ really stood out to me as a representation of the vacillating extremes between faith and doubt

The prince says of “the Holbein picture of Christ” that Rogozhin liked, "Why, a man's faith might be ruined by looking at that picture!" ‘Ruined’ in the sense that such extreme suffering and anguish causes men to turn away from Christ - to be offended. Rogozhin honestly and unexpectedly replies, “So it is!” Unlike the prince, a suffering servant, Rogozhin has long turned aside from the harsh demands of ‘the way of the cross’. But with regrets.

...the scene with Myshkin and Rogozhin as they discuss God and exchange crosses. Is the cheap tin cross that Myshkin gives to Rogozhin meant to symbolize Rogozhin's values, while the gold one which he gives to Myshkin is meant to symbolize Myshkin's pure ideals and concept of God?

So they exchange crosses: the self-effacing prince’s cheap tin cross for proud Roghozin’s gold. The exchange of crosses emphasises Rogozhin's extraordinary, though sporadic, need for the friendship and wisdom of the Christ-like prince: 'Parfen had called him "brother"'.

[Janine]

Gladys, do you think it is the 'need' that causes Myshkin to love Roghozin to the fullest, even though he is violent and commits murder, and Myshkin knows he can strike at anytime? Does he see him as he would a child who is disturbed or wounded by life and know he must be his friend; does Myshkin think he can save him from himself? I could not quite understand how the prince did begin to love him on the train and in the scenes that followed; then to maintain that love throughout the novel, even after having narrowly escaped having his own throat cut by Roghozin. I have been thinking about his the last couple of days. Is it that, being 'Christ-like', the prince is totally forgiving of those with the greatest sin, such as the thieves on the cross and those who are crucifying him; as in "Father forgive them, for the know not what they do".

[cicadamoon]

Gladys...I love how you tied Gregers Werle and his love of a "truth" into this discussion again! You brought an interesting aspect to my interpretation. And in doing so, you illuminated something that I thought that I'd examined critically in my own life ie. that things don't need to be "true" or not... and then I went off criticizing Prince Myshkin because he wasn't being "intellectually or emotionally truthful"! Well, obviously it's an issue for me personally, or it wouldn't emerge so strongly as a theme in my interpretation!

Okay, I think that your interpretation is closer to Dostoyevsky's original intent. Nevertheless, it is interesting to take a text and play with it, twist it and read it differently than was originally intended.

I am reading the text from Natasya's point of view because it is fun to invert the narrative.

But, I'm ready to let this rest now.

I've started the Tin Drum and I'm enjoying the dry wit immensely. I won't comment or read any comments on it until I've finished it.

Looking forward to some good discussions?

Thank you again for taking the time to really work my ideas over.

Cicadamoon

[Gladys]

I've started The Tin Drum and I'm enjoying the dry wit immensely.

I look forward to your comments, Cicadamoon, because all dialogue on Forum Book Club - October dried up mid-way through that novel. If you post there, I will happily respond.

I'm glad, Janine, that you still keep in touch with this thread. 'The Idiot' is a book one keeps thinking of. So also was 'The Brothers Karamazov', which I read long ago.

do you think it is the 'need' that causes Myshkin to love Roghozin to the fullest, even though he is violent and commits murder, and Myshkin knows he can strike at anytime?

Love itself motivates Prince Myshkin, not 'need'. He lives in the moment.

Does he see him as he would a child who is disturbed or wounded by life and know he must be his friend; does Myshkin think he can save him from himself?

Prince Myshkin see Roghozin as one in need, not as a child. The prince hopes, rather than thinks, that he can save Roghozin from himself.

I could not quite understand how the prince did begin to love him on the train and in the scenes that followed; then to maintain that love throughout the novel, even after having narrowly escaped having his own throat cut by Roghozin. I have been thinking about his the last couple of days.

In the words of the hymn, 'O perfect Love, all human thought transcending'. To love the unlovable! Think too of the noxious Ippolit.