Anyone who has ever read Fyodor Dostoyevsky, please comment

[JCamilo]

In saying 'But Dostoevsky ends making him act like fool', JCamilo, you miss the dimension of Nietzsche's hyper-rational superman; unless you mean that, contrary to appearances, the prince acts with inscrutable wisdom.

You are missing the point: the Prince thinks with inscrutable wisdom, he have a superior morality, but the pratice is harder. He would not be existencialist if his actions are always the perfect reflection of his nature. There must be a contradictory view so Dostoievisky could portrait the difference between the being and the reality. He acts like an idiot,he is not one (Or in fact, nobody in the book is an idiot) because of the pratical conflict where he is.

The prince's limited understanding of and interest in refined 'social interaction' has no significant impact on outcomes in The Idiot.

How come? You say that the book is about failure of communication (which implies the Prince trying to communicate with others, thus interaction with society), you say that he is an idiot for others (another result of the interaction with society), you say he would cause redemption of several individuals (interation with society) and more, you are just moving away Dostoievisky main character, the only one present in all his writings: Russian Society. The Prince is just a factor of change that appears. He is not complete apart from Society (and that would be reducing Dostoievisky to a second rate rousseau).

Based on my reading, I disagree. In part, because Dostoevsky has a phenomenal ability to present convincing philosophical positions contrary to his own (spectacularly so in The Brothers Karamazov).

Basead on your reading, The Underground Man is a positive, happy portrait??? That is baffling. How so? Are you going to tell me that all dostoievisky did was characters like Alioacha and Myshkin? Are you going to ignore Dimitri, Ivan or his father?
In fact, all examples I gave are not of characters that share Dostoievisky position, but different characters. And if anything, Dostoievisky indeed have the capacity of showing different voices but that is not a voice made of happiness only. And the number of examples of a mistrust and disapointment is enough.

Rather, the prince redeems, or at least brings comfort and joy to, the lives of so many. For instance: Roghozin, Nastasya, Aglaya, Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky, Lebedev and, finally, Vera Lebedev, Lizabetha Prokofievna, and Evgenie Pavlovitch. You may say that his redeeming influence is short-lived. Perhaps so, but life itself is short and one should 'seize the day'. Dostoevesky's existential prince lives always in the moment.

I may ask what redemption Roghozin and Nastasya discovered? In the middle of the book the presence of the prince is often good, but what change he caused to them? And more, What change Roghozin caused to the prince (the are opposite characters, you know.) How come the prince ends in a negative state (remember, an existential man must remain aware of his own self, and insanity is not the samething), with the two women he "loved" unhappy or dead, his closest relation in siberia (are you going to tell me that Dostoievisky had positive views about Siberia?) can only convey redemption and Hope? It is not possible to eliminated the very negative elements that surround Myshkin fate and those near to him. That some may have sympathy to him (altough most still failed to understand him or follow his high ideals) is obviously positive, but just like seeing it as a drama where only bad things happens is wrong, and so is seeing it just by the qualities of Myshkin.

Exclusively. My point is that the prince is a peacemaker, focused on helping his neighbour (agape), while his fellow Russians follow ephemeral self-interest - selfishly chasing the wind. Compared to them, the prince is 'down to earth' and rooted in tangible reality. So says Dostoevsky.

Dostoievisky say it? (And it would not be odd at all, being romantic is not synounimous of having a mind in the clouds). And again, nothing of that turns the prince in a less romantic character. Yourself said you could see quixotic tones and called quixote a romantic character. I repeat, when Dostoievisky says someone is a good natural man, or compare him with Dickens, he is not being vain. He knows well that he is fishing in a romantic pound.

No, the prince never fails because he sees so clearly. He succeeds admirably, and this success is the critical dimension I think you're missing. He succeeds from the first page of the novel to the last. Isn't this, JCamilo, the yawning gulf between our positions?

Maybe, but the question is what sucess have him? Insanity is losing his insight, not gaining it. Being the cause of death and unhappiness is obviously a failure to him.
In the end, you are saying Madame Bovary is a success because she is herself all though the book. And Mishkin is, but he is also someone activelly under influence and influencing others. If Dom Quixote remained in his library, he would never be Dom Quixote.

Prince Myshkin alone succeeds in appreciating the existential nature of human reality (Dostoevsky's reality), in which society is a veneer and only individuals matter. Love is all is Dostoevsky’s existential thesis. And the prince loves much.[/QUOTE]

[Gladys]

Prince Myshkin alone succeeds in appreciating the existential nature of human reality (Dostoevsky's reality), in which society is a veneer and only individuals matter. Love is all is Dostoevsky’s existential thesis. And the prince loves much.

With this quoted paragraph, your last post abruptly ends. Have you a comment on the paragraph?

[JCamilo]

Just that would not be Dostoievisky reality. His reality is present in Karamazov. Several conflicting views. You could say that Dostoievisky desired guys like Myshikin to be part of his society, but he is more a Tolstoy than a Dostoievisky (In fact, It is one of the funniest analogies this conversation caused o me. I have once said that the relation between both, among admiration and attacks, lead Tolstoy to write Ivan Illitch,that is one of the most dostoieviskian books not write by him, now it is good to see that the natural good man could be the old count. I wish someone could find a letter by dostoievisky saying this... anyways back to reality)...
This leads to the Great Inquisitor, after all the orignal good man is there, Jesus. And he is held captive not because people do not reckonize him, but exactly because of that. Brothers Karamazov works with similar themes of The Idiot, except they seem more defined in Dostoievisky mind, plus, his writing technique achived the highest level there. And nobody rescue Jesus. Not even Aliosha. It is the same hypocrite society. (Yet, Brothers K is not about the natural good man, but should be about a sinner). What does Aliosha, who works as the moral reference of the Karamazov family? Of course, there should be more about Aliosha, to bad we havent. All the voices are there, and something that we note, a difference between Jesus or Quixot from Myshkin is that they are active, fighters. Myshkin is sometimes too passive.
In the end, I think our point of disagreement lies that you are correct about the character of Myshkin, but while focusing too much on him you just change the simplicity of interpretation: instead of a mistaken simplistic interpretation of a drama of clumsy idiot, we have a simplistic view of a redemption of a too perfect character. Dostoievisky is too complex to tell us "all is bad" or "all is good" and this lies in accepting the fact the prince is also tragic, failible, sad (his fate) altough noble, memorable and strong.

[Gladys]

...the Prince thinks with inscrutable wisdom, he have a superior morality, but the practice is harder. He would not be existentialist if his actions are always the perfect reflection of his nature.

Exactly so. The prince is not the perfect god/man, Jesus Christ. Always in good faith (to use Jean-Paul Sartre’s phrase), Myshkin lives and acts in the moment. He does his best but the epileptic and inexperienced prince is often surprised by the consequences of his own actions. The crucial point is: he acts in good faith.

You say that the book is about failure of communication (which implies the Prince trying to communicate with others, thus interaction with society), you say that he is an idiot for others (another result of the interaction with society), you say he would cause redemption of several individuals (interaction with society)

By 'refined social interaction', I meant social graces: etiquette and decorum. He lacks the finesse of sceptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch. Certainly the prince is limited by his capabilities, as are we all.

In part, because Dostoevsky has a phenomenal ability to present convincing philosophical positions contrary to his own (spectacularly so in The Brothers Karamazov).

Are you going to tell me that all Dostoevsky did was characters like Alioacha and Myshkin? Are you going to ignore Dimitri, Ivan or his father?

As I explained, Dostoevsky (like Kierkegaard) could portray, convincingly, viewpoints far from his own.

I may ask what redemption Roghozin and Nastasya discovered? In the middle of the book the presence of the prince is often good, but what change he caused to them? And more, What change Roghozin caused to the prince (the are opposite characters, you know.) How come the prince ends in a negative state (remember, an existential man must remain aware of his own self, and insanity is not the same thing), with the two women he "loved" unhappy or dead, his closest relation in Siberia (are you going to tell me that Dostoievisky had positive views about Siberia?) can only convey redemption and Hope? It is not possible to eliminated the very negative elements that surround Myshkin fate and those near to him.

I've answered this in detail long ago but here's a summary. This is part of the dimension you missed. The prince is not God, Jove or Zeus because he has no control over destiny: either the fates of others or his own fate. But magnificently, he does all he can do: He loves much.

Luke 7:47___Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

My point is that the prince is a peacemaker, focused on helping his neighbour (agape), while his fellow Russians follow ephemeral self-interest - selfishly chasing the wind. Compared to them, the prince is 'down to earth' and rooted in tangible reality. So says Dostoevsky.

He knows well that he is fishing in a romantic pond.

I don't understand your response and I wish to avoid the use of the word 'romantic' due to ambiguities. My point is that Dostoevsky portrays the prince as a glorious success in the face of ostensible utter failure.

He succeeds admirably, and this success is the critical dimension I think you're missing. He succeeds from the first page of the novel to the last. Isn't this, JCamilo, the yawning gulf between our positions?

Maybe, but the question is what success have him? Insanity is losing his insight, not gaining it. Being the cause of death and unhappiness is obviously a failure to him.

From a human, rational standpoint, the prince achieves absolutely nothing. No success. Nil. Nothing but total and abysmal failure.

However, from an ethical or (better still) a religious perspective, "He loved much" He is Dostoevsky's superman, whom the world mocks as a romantic, an idealist.

You could say that Dostoevsky desired guys like Myshkin to be part of his society

Perhaps, but he is more of an inspiration, a ‘suffering servant’.

This leads to the Great Inquisitor, after all the original good man is there,

I started re-reading it tonight.

...instead of a mistaken simplistic interpretation of a drama of clumsy idiot, we have a simplistic view of a redemption of a too perfect character. Dostoevsky is too complex to tell us "all is bad" or "all is good" and this lies in accepting the fact the prince is also tragic, fallible, sad (his fate) although noble, memorable and strong.

It's not so much the prince is redeemed, as the joy and light, whether small or transient, that he brings to the hearts of many. Dostoevsky's "all is good" in relation to the prince is cleverly hidden in paradox (success in failure). Just read all the negative perceptions readers have of the prince on 'The Idiot' forum or on September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky.

I have focused on the prince because therein lies the glorious paradox. The thunderbolt of subtlety. Nevertheless, as for The Brothers Karamzov, there is so much to be said of Dostoevsky’s psychological portraits of all the characters in The Idiot.

[JCamilo]

Exactly so. The prince is not the perfect god/man, Jesus Christ. Always in good faith (to use Jean-Paul Sartre’s phrase), Myshkin lives and acts in the moment. He does his best but the epileptic and inexperienced prince is often surprised by the consequences of his own actions. The crucial point is: he acts in good faith.

Existencialism is not just about having good will or better, good ethics, but the pratice of it. The prince acts in good faith seeking his (and others equally) good. His failure lies in doing both, obviously: hell is full of good intentions.

By 'refined social interaction', I meant social graces: etiquette and decorum. He lacks the finesse of sceptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch. Certainly the prince is limited by his capabilities, as are we all.

But I never meant it. The prince social limitations leads him to misunderstading the motives of others and thus he ends using himself (the only social being he fully understands) as model. There lies his communication problem (Or anyone else, Hell are others)

As I explained, Dostoevsky (like Kierkegaard) could portray, convincingly, viewpoints far from his own.

Thus, all the negative points in the books I listed.

I've answered this in detail long ago but here's a summary. This is part of the dimension you missed. The prince is not God, Jove or Zeus because he has no control over destiny: either the fates of others or his own fate. But magnificently, he does all he can do: He loves much.

Luke 7:47___Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

I did not miss. The prince may be in peace with himself. He was never in peace with others. Just saying that he loved is not enough, it is how it happens, the pratice that is shown that gives the dimensions of a character.

I don't understand your response and I wish to avoid the use of the word 'romantic' due to ambiguities. My point is that Dostoevsky portrays the prince as a glorious success in the face of ostensible utter failure.

We did not avoid it so far, and I need not. Romantic is not the only ambiguous words we are using. Love is considerable more ambigous. How to avoid it? Anyways, Romantic is literary movemment, style that Dostoievisky do not belong, but that is behind his formation as a reader (before being a writer) and he was aware of this.

From a human, rational standpoint, the prince achieves absolutely nothing. No success. Nil. Nothing but total and abysmal failure.

No absolutes. The prince achives and fails.

However, from an ethical or (better still) a religious perspective, "He loved much" He is Dostoevsky's superman, whom the world mocks as a romantic, an idealist.

The world does not mock who mocks him. Dostoievisky is the one who do it: he says the good is an ideal. The prince is the natural good man. He compare the prince with Romantic characters (Victor Hugo and Dickens). And Superman is born in the romantic ages, some would trace them to Carlyle Heroes.

Perhaps, but he is more of an inspiration, a ‘suffering servant’.

Actually, Dostoievisky was an open critic to martyridom in name of politics. So, I think he demanded more than just suffering servant, altough this would not make the Prince tragic...

It's not so much the prince is redeemed, as the joy and light, whether small or transient, that he brings to the hearts of many. Dostoevsky's "all is good" in relation to the prince is cleverly hidden in paradox (success in failure). Just read all the negative perceptions readers have of the prince on 'The Idiot' forum or on September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky.

I do not mind what others think much. There is nothing much negative about the Prince, the negative is the sittuation where he was, the famous real life that Dostoievisky wanted to portray. He do like to present contraditions such as a light causing darkness, because Dostoievisky is not a fan of absolute certains. But this is hardly well hidden, what is well hidden is Dostoievisky mistrusts in the society, not because they are idiots, but because they are selfish. The failure of the prince is not meant to enhance his goodness, but rather let this clear. His redemption is his failure, his success should be the redemption of others. (Of course, impossible, he was created to be shunned). Of course, sometimes he even motivated genuine goodness from others and that is possible part of his success.

I have focused on the prince because therein lies the glorious paradox. The thunderbolt of subtlety. Nevertheless, as for The Brothers Karamzov, there is so much to be said of Dostoevsky’s psychological portraits of all the characters in The Idiot.

There is no need to focus in one side of the coin here, I do not see the prince as a one-dimensional character, but his effect on the story and the whole place on Dostoievisky work.

[JCamilo]

btw, Gladys, if our disagreement point is basically the view of Myshkin and that you are focusing on his goodness because of the previous exagerated negativity towards him, then you could have said so and we would have no disagreement (or at least not signficantly) at all and life would go on

[Gladys]

btw, Gladys, if our disagreement point is basically the view of Myshkin and that you are focusing on his goodness because of the previous exaggerated negativity towards him, then you could have said so and we would have no disagreement (or at least not significantly) at all...

No, no, no. Our disagreement is major, and pertains to the allegorical intent of the The Idiot, which I have up to now avoided by preferring to focus on discrete evidence rather than existential complexities. So, throwing caution to the wind, here is my overview of the religious or allegorical dimension of the novel.

...the prince (the symbol of the idiot) is something particular moving to an universal symbolism (In this case two universal : the fool and the martyr. Since the allegory moves from universal to particular, that is not the case)

The prince (the symbolic representative of God’s elect) arrives in Russia (the symbol for Christendom). Here is something universal moving to a particular symbolism: the individual’s or reader’s (our own) relationship to love (agape) and so to the God of love: to the eternal, the absolute and the infinite.

The core of The Idiot expresses Dostoevsky’s religious and existential world-view. He sees Prince Myshkin as a courageous follower of Christ, one of the few thousand elect in The Grand Inquisitor: exceptional humans (overmen) who can existentially stare freedom in the face. Predictably, the disciple (Myshkin) ‘fails’ just as Jesus failed, both on Calvary and fifteen centuries later at the hands of the aged inquisitor. The prince’s tears, falling on Roghozin’s cheek, parallels Jesus kissing the devilish, old inquisitor. Both the prince and Jesus (see Alyosha's words quoted below) are vindicated through loving, suffering, crucifixion and resurrection: they triumph gloriously, in life as in 'death'. The Idiot ends with understated ecstasy, hidden in 'a fog cloud': Myshkin’s spiritual resurrection. It is crucial to appreciate that Myshkin, in leading a life of love (agape), succeeds from moment to moment (existentially), not just at the end. Dostoevsky reveres and venerates this witness to the truth, who loves (agape) much. The prince becomes a pattern, a universal symbol, a rallying cry for humanity.

Are not our positions, JCamilo, worlds apart? We more or less agree that the prince is insightful and loving. You see his ethical strength but not his religious audacity, because you characterise as ambivalence or even failure, what for Dostoevsky and Alyosha is unblemished, ongoing triumph. Martyrdom plays only a minor role. Why do we see differently? While you are more widely read, I suspect my knowledge of Christianity and the existential religious writings of Soren Kierkegaard (a towering genius, and a Christian like Dostoevsky) help in understanding the many religious allusions in ‘The Idiot’.

I said about books which the literal meaning are contradictory to the allegorical meaning or that even writers use the literal as a fog cloud to manipulate the [reader].

Both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor are fictional reflections of Kierkegaard's religious writings of the 1840’s, culminating in his vitriolic ‘Attack on Christendom’ (1855). The suffering servant (Jesus or Myshkin) of Isaiah 53, though ‘despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief’, is vindicated with ‘he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand’. In both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky uses the literal, the apparent failures of Myshkin and Jesus, as a fog to cloud their existential and eternal success.

The first work of Soren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) was On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates and last was Attack upon Christendom. Irony is fundamental to Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard; both play the devil’s advocate consummately. The last work is one of several that attacked Christendom in the same vein as The Grand Inquisitor. In Ivan’s poem, the devilish inquisitor shows the duplicity of Christendom, but Dostoevsky sympathies align with Alyosha’s viewpoint.

"But all that is absurd!" suddenly exclaimed Alyosha, who had hitherto listened perplexed and agitated but in profound silence. "Your poem is a glorification of Christ, not an accusation, as you, perhaps, meant to be. And who will believe you when you speak of 'freedom'? Is it thus that we Christians must understand it? It is Rome (not all Rome, for that would be unjust), but the worst of the Roman Catholics, the Inquisitors and Jesuits, that you have been exposing!

Similarly, Alyosha would rightly interpret The Idiot as a glorification of the prince, not an accusation.

A couple of years ago, when I finished reading 'The Idiot', I drew much the same verdict on the novel as you, except that "his tears flowed on to Roghozin's cheek" jarred terribly. This anticlimax of an ending was not what I had come to expect from Dostoevsky. Hours later I recognised the heartbroken prince’s banishment to Switzerland as a ‘crucifixion’, a splendid sacrifice, but weeks passed before I perceived Myshkin’s ‘resurrection’ and the jigsaw began to make thorough sense.

------------------------------

Existentialism is not just about having good will or better, good ethics, but the practice of it. The prince acts in good faith seeking his (and others equally) good. His failure lies in doing both

His success, understood from an eternal standpoint, ‘lies in doing both’. A paradox.

The prince social limitations leads him to misunderstanding the motives of others

He looks for and understands the good in others; he loves (agape) much. Can you provide even one substantial example where the prince misunderstands ‘the motives of others’?

Thus, all the negative points in the books I listed.

Through Ivan in The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky seamlessly plays devil's advocate, as he does in all his novels: and like Kierkegaard, he argues both sides most convincingly.

Just saying that he loved [agape] is not enough, it is how it happens, the practice that is shown that gives the dimensions of a character.

Yes, it's not enough, because agape is nothing less than works of love. Practice (self-sacrificing works and actions) is all. While, love may be ambiguous, agape is not.

From a human, rational standpoint, the prince achieves absolutely nothing. No success. Nil.

The prince achieves and fails.

His comprehensive success is evident on the plane of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' (to quote from The Grand Inquisitor).

His redemption is his failure, his success should be the redemption of others.

The disciple succeeds like his master, Jesus: betrayed, deserted, denied and crucified.

The world does not mock who mocks him. Dostoevsky is the one who does it

You have not understood Dostoevsky's irony here.

So, I think he demanded more than just suffering servant...

The words 'suffering servant' allude to Jesus, and his demand is 'Follow me', in my footsteps. If the Christian 'Dostoevsky is not a fan of absolute certainties', what are we to make of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' at the heart of Christianity? His Christianity, like Kierkegaard’s, is radical, as blatantly expressed in Ibsen’s play, Brand. In an 1854 letter (to N.D. Fonvisin, Russian novelist) Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote,

"If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with the truth."

Surely, ‘a fan of absolute certainties’!

[JCamilo]

The prince (the symbolic representative of God’s elect) arrives in Russia (the symbol for Christendom). Here is something universal moving to a particular symbolism: the individual’s or reader’s (our own) relationship to love (agape) and so to the God of love: to the eternal, the absolute and the infinite.

Again, Love, Christianism symbols, pretty evident in Dostoievisky are not particular. Once you get the obvious clue (The title of the book, the biblical references, Dom Quixote) you are finding an nice symbolism, but an universal archetypical character.

The core of The Idiot expresses Dostoevsky’s religious and existential world-view. He sees Prince Myshkin as a courageous follower of Christ, one of the few thousand elect in The Grand Inquisitor: exceptional humans (overmen) who can existentially stare freedom in the face. Predictably, the disciple (Myshkin) ‘fails’ just as Jesus failed, both on Calvary and fifteen centuries later at the hands of the aged inquisitor. The prince’s tears, falling on Roghozin’s cheek, parallels Jesus kissing the devilish, old inquisitor. Both the prince and Jesus (see Alyosha's words quoted below) are vindicated through loving, suffering, crucifixion and resurrection: they triumph gloriously, in life as in 'death'. The Idiot ends with understated ecstasy, hidden in 'a fog cloud': Myshkin’s spiritual resurrection. It is crucial to appreciate that Myshkin, in leading a life of love (agape), succeeds from moment to moment (existentially), not just at the end. Dostoevsky reveres and venerates this witness to the truth, who loves (agape) much. The prince becomes a pattern, a universal symbol, a rallying cry for humanity.

The prince was already a universal symbol (he was jesus, dom quixote) but the question is not the individual prince only but his effects on society. There ends his ties with Jesus, and there is a point for Dostoievisky, the russian society is also relevant. You can not split the individual from society.

Are not our positions, JCamilo, worlds apart? We more or less agree that the prince is insightful and loving. You see his ethical strength but not his religious audacity, because you characterise as ambivalence or even failure, what for Dostoevsky and Alyosha is unblemished, ongoing triumph. Martyrdom plays only a minor role. Why do we see differently? While you are more widely read, I suspect my knowledge of Christianity and the existential religious writings of Soren Kierkegaard (a towering genius, and a Christian like Dostoevsky) help in understanding the many religious allusions in ‘The Idiot’.

I would not worry about being widely read, I think we know about the point but it is the interpretation. Like a puzzle, we are just placing the same pieces in different configurations.
Kierkegaard defines the existencialism. Dostoievisky can build an existential character. But Dostoievisky does more than that (the difference between a philosopher and a novelist): Dostoievisky makes him alive and in action. The book is not a description of an existential man, but his relation in society. You certainly know that after the XIX century (a bit because the insight given by people like Dostoievisky who had the labour to apply the ideas of existencialism in living fictional works) the existencialism was symbolized by thinkers which lead the discussion to the scenary of politics because they are arguing the position of the existencialm man in the world and how effective they must be. Those questions are raised by Dostoievisky. That is why you must always analyse the prince under the light of the relations with russian society.

Both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor are fictional reflections of Kierkegaard's religious writings of the 1840’s, culminating in his vitriolic ‘Attack on Christendom’ (1855). The suffering servant (Jesus or Myshkin) of Isaiah 53, though ‘despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief’, is vindicated with ‘he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand’. In both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky uses the literal, the apparent failures of Myshkin and Jesus, as a fog to cloud their existential and eternal success.

Jesus had an eternal success. Myshkin? If there is any continuity, it is Alioacha and Alioacha stills having troubles to conect himself with the world.

The first work of Soren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) was On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates and last was Attack upon Christendom. Irony is fundamental to Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard; both play the devil’s advocate consummately. The last work is one of several that attacked Christendom in the same vein as The Grand Inquisitor. In Ivan’s poem, the devilish inquisitor shows the duplicity of Christendom, but Dostoevsky sympathies align with Alyosha’s viewpoint.

Of course, altough some would argue he is sympathetic with Dimitri also. Anyways I pointed the use of Irony before. Even said about cynism, which was misunderstood, I think. Anyways, irony is a great idea, we have the hypocrisy of russian society (a little more, Roghozin is a more direct contradiction to Myshkin) and the Prince ethical strength. But when you use Irony you do not want to mean any of the points given, but force the reader (viwer, listener, student) to analyse the contradictions of points of view and arrive to a conclusion. If we consider, as you did, and I do, that Dostoievisky is ironic, his main aim is not the glorification of either side of his argument (one being Myshkin) but for us to question it. It is the question of the book, you obviously know well the book and have the condition, but as I said your focus in Myshkin is allow you to view beyond his archetypical function to the fourth (thinking like Dante here) level of interpretation.

"But all that is absurd!" suddenly exclaimed Alyosha, who had hitherto listened perplexed and agitated but in profound silence. "Your poem is a glorification of Christ, not an accusation, as you, perhaps, meant to be. And who will believe you when you speak of 'freedom'? Is it thus that we Christians must understand it? It is Rome (not all Rome, for that would be unjust), but the worst of the Roman Catholics, the Inquisitors and Jesuits, that you have been exposing!

Similarly, Alyosha would rightly interpret The Idiot as a glorification of the prince, not an accusation.

Of course, Alyosha is one view. But not the only view. (And Alyosha is a development of the characteristics of Myshikin, so he must see it).

His success, understood from an eternal standpoint, ‘lies in doing both’. A paradox.

It is not a paradox, they are compatible because they happen in different levels of action. One is the individual Myshkin, other are his effects. I think you are judging Myshin, either sucess or failure is irrelevant. He is alive, in life we have both negative and positive results. I think that is very important for Dostoievisky, a world where even a good guy who he liked would have bad momments.

He looks for and understands the good in others; he loves (agape) much. Can you provide even one substantial example where the prince misunderstands ‘the motives of others’?

His two love "affairs", he is in both sittuations misinterpretating how the two women reacts because his kind of Love does not deal with social rules, it is a feeling, truthful and strong that must be expressed.

Through Ivan in The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky seamlessly plays devil's advocate, as he does in all his novels: and like Kierkegaard, he argues both sides most convincingly.

Yeah, and that is why Karamazov is, my opinion, a stronger work than The Idiot. In Karamazov, with the brothers, he have stronger and more convicing voices than Roghozin, who was a counter-part of Myshkin. His irony is more powerful and developed; he can argue convicingly with both sides. In many ways, the ressurection of Myshkin is Ivan, Dimitri and Alioacha.

His comprehensive success is evident on the plane of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' (to quote from The Grand Inquisitor).

I think you want to give a veredict. A conclusion about Myshkin actions. And I think it is a Question that is presented in The Idiot, not an answer.

The disciple succeeds like his master, Jesus: betrayed, deserted, denied and crucified.

See, at somepoint it ends. Jesus kept his disciples. One of them followed him to the church. He came back and conviced them to follow him. He activelly changed the world.

You have not understood Dostoevsky's irony here.

I have. That is why I said Dostoievisky is the one making the mockery. Not others.

The words 'suffering servant' allude to Jesus, and his demand is 'Follow me', in my footsteps. If the Christian 'Dostoevsky is not a fan of absolute certainties', what are we to make of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' at the heart of Christianity? His Christianity, like Kierkegaard’s, is radical, as blatantly expressed in Ibsen’s play, Brand. In an 1854 letter (to N.D. Fonvisin, Russian novelist) Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote,

"If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with the truth."

Surely, ‘a fan of absolute certainties’!

As I said before, Dostoievisky make us question and not give an answer. Finding Sucess, a glorification of one side, hope everywhere is finding someone who deal with absolute answers.

[Gladys]

We aren’t placing the same pieces in different configurations, JCamilo, because you have gravely underestimated the prince’s intuitive understanding of Nastasya and Aglaya - and of others too, I suspect. You have misconstrued the clear literal meaning.

Myshkin’s success, understood from an eternal standpoint, is paradoxical in that Russian society (and many a reader) sees his life as essentially a failure. And so do you, inasmuch as, you imagine the prince has misinterpreted how the two women, Aglaya and Nastasya, would react. HE DOES NOT! This fact is key to understanding the novel. Even with hindsight, the prince would behave in exactly the same way again towards the two women, because he intuits their deepest motives and feelings accurately. If Dostoevsky’s irony is lost on you here, you cannot possibly make sense of the rest: Myshkin’s earthly failure and eternal success.

Can’t you see that the prince, though labelled ‘the idiot’, understands better than anyone the desires, motives and feelings of all the needy characters in the novel? He especially understands Roghozin, Aglaya and Nastasya. Dostoevsky makes this clear, as a literal reading shows time and time again. My interpretation is based on this.

I have been using ‘allegory’ in the sense of ‘In literature, a symbolic story that serves as a disguised representation for meanings other than those indicated on the surface’ or ‘The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events’. The prince is one of God’s elect, not Jesus Christ. The prince’s story symbolises the elect’s relationship with agape and with Christendom. And challenges to the reader.

The book portrays the relationship one of God’s elect (not some existential man) to society. And yes, Dostoevsky is placing the existential Christian in the world, in Russian society, in Christendom, and exposing his apparent failures.

‘Jesus had an eternal success’? Not in his lifetime! Much the same with Myshkin. Alyosha, Jesus, Myshkin and Sonia ‘confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth’ to quote Hebrews 11:13. Dostoevsky religious position aligns squarely with these four. Nevertheless, he is intensely and sincerely sympathetic to almost all his characters, including Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, Pavel Smerdyakov and Roghozin. Both points are fundamental in understanding his irony.

In most of his works, Dostoevsky’s ‘main aim’ is ‘the glorification of’ God. In so doing, like Kierkegaard, he can and does present both sides of the argument with astonishing insight and skill. He is never shallow. He is not cynical but Christian, although his irony fools many.

The ‘disciple succeeds like his master’ and both actively change the world through agape. Jesus kept his disciples? No, one betrayed, another denied, and all deserted. And after Jesus’ death, was there a multitude of followers? No; as the grand inquisitor says, “But remember that these are but a few thousands--of gods, not men…”

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, "If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with the truth."

Dostoevsky is ‘a fan of absolute certainties’ who glorifies one side, with the ironic subtlety of genius.

[JCamilo]

We aren’t placing the same pieces in different configurations, JCamilo, because you have gravely underestimated the prince’s intuitive understanding of Nastasya and Aglaya - and of others too, I suspect. You have misconstrued the clear literal meaning.

Myshkin’s success, understood from an eternal standpoint, is paradoxical in that Russian society (and many a reader) sees his life as essentially a failure. And so do you, inasmuch as, you imagine the prince has misinterpreted how the two women, Aglaya and Nastasya, would react. HE DOES NOT! This fact is key to understanding the novel. Even with hindsight, the prince would behave in exactly the same way again towards the two women, because he intuits their deepest motives and feelings accurately. If Dostoevsky’s irony is lost on you here, you cannot possibly make sense of the rest: Myshkin’s earthly failure and eternal success.

There is no eternal success about Myshkin. He is not Jesus, his character is similar, but his story is not. And how you can talk about literal meaning and and this? The Literal meaning is the one with him crazy,your view of redemption is beyond the literal meaning.
And again, I never said he would misinterprete how the women would react. Here are walking in circles. The prince is keen about the other feelings and motives. He is not keen in how to deal with the intricated social conducts and place his own feeling as norm. And that is what show his failure to deal with the social interations: as result one women he tried to save died killed by the very friend he tried to made and the other in a unhappy marriage. All because he know not how to balance his true feelings and noble intentions to help with them.

Can’t you see that the prince, though labelled ‘the idiot’, understands better than anyone the desires, motives and feelings of all the needy characters in the novel? He especially understands Roghozin, Aglaya and Nastasya. Dostoevsky makes this clear, as a literal reading shows time and time again. My interpretation is based on this.

And also show that he literary ended with their lives and his own. The literal meaning does not show Myshikin just as a good man, but a good man who is unable to interact in social level. Since you ignore this (altough you do not, since you perceive the use of irony) our interpretation also leaves behind something important.

I have been using ‘allegory’ in the sense of ‘In literature, a symbolic story that serves as a disguised representation for meanings other than those indicated on the surface’ or ‘The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events’. The prince is one of God’s elect, not Jesus Christ. The prince’s story symbolises the elect’s relationship with agape and with Christendom. And challenges to the reader.

This definition of allegory does not mean anything. Any form of symbolism is a represention of abstract ideas, etc. And allegory is not the only form of symbolism. We have agreed with a definition and you even tryied to use the defintion in your previous argument, so I do not see how moving to this new defintion will help anything. Now, Myshikin is obviously a good guy with good intentions. It is not a disguise.

The book portrays the relationship one of God’s elect (not some existential man) to society. And yes, Dostoevsky is placing the existential Christian in the world, in Russian society, in Christendom, and exposing his apparent failures.

It is some existential man as it is basically an existential character. As Dostoievisky said : a natural good man, not exactly god's elect. And his failures are not apparent. You are just ignoring Dostoievisky works and own life. He is not a trancedentalist and we can see how his portrait is much more realistic in Brother K, which is an evolution of The Idiot theme (and other books). You are putting behind Dostoievisky blatant realism, political concerns and own personal experience. When someone like him build up a story that is quest of ideals and the effects on real society and his failure and have himself an experience with this kind of things he is not talking only about the glorification of ideals or how the others are at faulty at this. Repeating the traits of the prince does not change this.

‘Jesus had an eternal success’? Not in his lifetime!

err, No lifetime lasts an eternity. It is impossible to use eternal sucess because of that, unless you are a divine being (as Jesus) and that is something Myshkin was not. His effects end with his death and the death of those around him. The destiny are definitive. They are not changed positively by the prince at all. When you labour to argue the prince found his redemption after death while the 3 individuals closer to him were dead, unhappy or criminals, you are turning him in a selfish individual. The tragedy of the Prince is not his own happiness is the fact that all his good intentions and love caused several disgraces. For Dostoievisky, Kierkeergard or however, that is bad. The Ethical ideals must be praticed and not only desired. (That is existencialism, Jean-Paul Sartre demmands that it is not enough to be an estoic, but you must act to bring changes to the world).
Unlike Jesus, those who followed Jesus are glorified. He was the path of salvation, unlike the prince. His sacrifice redemmed others. Myshkin, not. You must apply your obvious knowledge about christianism to see the difference fundamental about them and how the sucess of Myshkin is so different from Jesus (and to be fair, we should not call it sucess or failure, just life).

Much the same with Myshkin. Alyosha, Jesus, Myshkin and Sonia ‘confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth’ to quote Hebrews 11:13. Dostoevsky religious position aligns squarely with these four. Nevertheless, he is intensely and sincerely sympathetic to almost all his characters, including Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, Pavel Smerdyakov and Roghozin. Both points are fundamental in understanding his irony.

He is not sympathetic to all of them, at least not beyond the fact they are his "sons". Some of them represent individuals or positions he despited and Alyosha, Myshkin represent something he was sympathetic, but far from being his own pratice or own moral. Although this argument leads to nowhere: Dostoievisky does not portrait himself, but is guidaded by his experiences and conduct the characters.

In most of his works, Dostoevsky’s ‘main aim’ is ‘the glorification of’ God. In so doing, like Kierkegaard, he can and does present both sides of the argument with astonishing insight and skill. He is never shallow. He is not cynical but Christian, although his irony fools many.

Err, Cynics are philosophers who used irony as main toy. He is cynical (in a sense, as nobody is really a cynic anymore). Cynism is basically irony used as social criticism.
And you are turning Dostoievisky in a preacher. His main aim was not the glorification of god, but the conflict between moral and feelings in the human mind/soul and the society around him.

The ‘disciple succeeds like his master’ and both actively change the world through agape. Jesus kept his disciples? No, one betrayed, another denied, and all deserted. And after Jesus’ death, was there a multitude of followers? No; as the grand inquisitor says, “But remember that these are but a few thousands--of gods, not men…”

Err, All deserted? There is a certain John and a group of women watching in the cross, remember? Wait, this same women who, despite the roman guard, went to his tomb? What about Joseph of Arimateia, his disciple, who took care of the corpse. And you seem to believe Jesus life ended in the cross, it does not. The only disciple that was not back in 3 days was the one that betrayed him. After his death there is a description of a multidute of followers, yes.
And Dostoievisky would not be foolish, as christian, to deny Christ efficience. And you know, the Inquisitor represents the Roman Church pretension to represent all christians and keep to themselves the "monopoly" of christianism. You know Dostoievisky did not approved it, and that comment was obviously an attack to the roman church and not to Jesus.

Dostoevsky is ‘a fan of absolute certainties’ who glorifies one side, with the ironic subtlety of genius.

Quite otherwise. You quoted his preference for Christ (faith) instead of Truth (absolute certainites). If anything is primal in Dostoievisky literary style is the capacity to portrait different voices (and opinions) without giving power to a single of them. It is the capacity to portrait conflicts and doubts (because he was also like this). It is not the capacity to arrive in the end of the book with a conclusive and absolute moral. In Brother K there is not glorification of one side at all.

But anyways, I would rather allow others to write here. This became circular. I think we will have to sneer to each other and learn to live with that (Joking of course, you may give up sneering and throw stones at me instead )

[Gladys]

This became circular. I think we will have to sneer to each other and learn to live with that

I have nothing useful to add on existential Christianity, the life of Christ, allegory, literal meaning, The Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamzov or Dostoevsky the person. I always had good reason to doubt my ability or wisdom in trying to explain the existential religious complexities of Kierkegaard, as reflected in Dostoevsky or Ibsen. My prime interest remains textual evidence in The Idiot.

Our discussion has been circular for a week, through language difficulties and differences in background. As you say, we have both been repeating positions. Please understand that my last couple of posts have been more aggressive, without sneering , simply to break communication deadlock. I finally understand you better in the following crucial area.

And again, I never said he [Myshkin] would misinterpret how the women would react. Here are walking in circles. The prince is keen about the feelings and motives of others. He is not keen in how to deal with the intricate social conducts and places his own feeling as norm. And that is what shows his failure to deal with the social interactions: as result one women he tried to save, died killed by the very friend he tried to made and the other in a unhappy marriage. All because he know not how to balance his true feelings and noble intentions to help with them.

Walking in circles, I had thought you disagreed that the prince understands how Aglaya and Nastasya would react. Of course, I still assert that the prince behaves appropriately in key social interactions with both women. Is there evidence to the contrary? Far from being responsible for disasters that befall Nastasya, Roghozin and Aglaya, the prince acts courageously and appropriately to forestall disaster, while all around gawk. That he fails to avert disaster is not his fault.

If you can accept this proposition, everything about the prince changes.

[JCamilo]

The sneering is a joke, Gladys, hence the final smile and well ,the stones, my dear Magdanele

[Gladys]

I still assert that the prince behaves appropriately in key social interactions with both women.

For more on this see: How aware is Myshkin?

[Truthlover]

I read The Idiot about twelve years ago. What stuck in my mind more than anything else was the Prince's statement: "In the end beauty will save us." This was stated two or three times in the book, but I never could retrieve the exact pages. If anyone knows, please inform me, and rectify the exact quote for me if my memory is bad.

I found another quote, very similar, in Dostoyevsky's The Devils (or The Possessed): "... it [humanity] can get on without science, without bread, but without beauty it cannot carry on, for then there will be nothing more to do in the world! The whole mystery is there, the whole of history is there! Even science could not exist a moment without beauty—do you know that, you who are laughing at me?" (pp. 483–484 in the paperback edition by Penguin Classics).

Another question I have is: It seems strange to me that our online-literature does not feature one of my favorites among Dostoyevsky's novels: Memoirs from the House of the Dead. I just loved this book. It tells what it's like to live in prison, and although it spans 13 years, it reflects Dostoyevsky's four-year experience in prison.

[Truthlover]

It appears to me the discussion presupposes all of us agree on the definition of the term "romantic." It might be presumed that most of us know what is being referred to when we speak of the Romantics of the earliest part of the 19th century. Even if that is true, I think it would be worthwhile for someone among us to find a definition of romanticism we can agree on, because in some of the replies the word is used in the popular sense as in the sigh: "How romantic!" which means something like—you make my heart beat and it blinds my reasoning process. And in others, the word is expressed in relation to the Romantic Movement in literature, music, and fine arts. It would be very superficial to leave Dostoyesvky thinking that his message to us is something similar to what is expressed by the former, popular meaning—feelings as the ultimate source of truth. At the same time, even though Dostoyevsky is writing in the third quarter of the 19th century, what elements can be considered "romantic" in his works, even if not related to the Romantics, strictly speaking, fifty years before him?

I wish to give an example of the confusion that can arise, taken from my personal experience. After I had read some of Jane Austen's novels, I wanted to comment viva voce with a friend of mine on the intricate human relationships portrayed in Austen's novels through elaborately refined conversations between the characters. My friend, after listening a while, simply said: "Oh, those stories are romances." I felt very let down, because I do not think the love stories Austen presents have anything to do with the main issues she is trying to communicate in her works on a much deeper level: the human virtues, decisions made from discernment processes, ethical issues demanding loyalty between the characters, etc. If you read her books looking for "romances" in the popular sense of the word, you might as well save yourself the great effort it takes to read and understand her novels, and watch the afternoon soap opera.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying love affairs cannot be the main attraction in great literature. If that were so, I would have to exclude The Betrothed by Alessandro Manzoni (which novel, by the way, I am surprised is not included on our online-literature list). No, it has nothing to do with "what" the author is talking about, in the sense of what the story is about. Rather, it has to do with the message the author is trying to convey, using the vehicle of the particular story he is narrating. I realize the difference between these two principles should not be exaggerated, however it is worth making the distinction in order to decide what really makes a novel great.