The Idiot (Modern Library Classics) | Fyodor Dostoevsky | Is the title ironic? or pragmatic?

The Idiot (Modern Library Classics) | Fyodor Dostoevsky | It doesn't get better

books:

The Idiot (Modern ...

	The Idiot (Modern Library Classics) Fyodor Dostoevsky Modern Library, 2003 - 720 pages average customer review:based on 83 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Returning to Russia from a sanitarium in Switzerland, the Christ-like epileptic Prince Myshkin finds himself enmeshed in a tangle of love, torn between two women?the notorious kept woman Nastasya and the pure Aglaia?both involved, in turn, with the corrupt, money-hungry Ganya. In the end, Myshkin?s honesty, goodness, and integrity are shown to be unequal to the moral emptiness of those around him. In her revision of the Garnett translation, Anna Brailovsky has corrected inaccuracies wrought by Garnett?s drastic anglicization of the novel, restoring as much as possible the syntactical structure of the original.

for more information click here

Is the title ironic? or pragmatic?

I had read just two Dostoevsy novel before this - 'The Brothers Karamazov' and 'Notes from the Underground', but lots of Turgenev and some other Russians - Kropotkin, Goldman, .... I also have some connection with Russian people because some of my work colleagues are Russian ex-patriots (one even carries a family name mentioned at one point in 'The Idiot').

Russian naming is difficult for those of us who do not have the Russian background, and 'The Idiot' was hard to keep straight in my mind - I probably didn't feel comfortable with names to near the end of this very long novel. There's Pavlovitch and Pavlischtev - not the same person. The hero Myshkin is also Lyov Nikolayevitch. Gavril is also Ganya (the short form of his name). With a large suite of characters, tracking these names is not easy. Perhaps a publisher/translator might provide a guide for non-Russian readers. I did find some connection through my knowledge of music: Madame Epanchin, Lizaveta Pokofyevna reminded me of Prokofiev, and the young man dying of consumption, Ippolit, reminded me of Ippolitov-Ivanov.

This novel is a psychological thriller and it may be unbelievable to most readers. How did Dostoevsky know that there are people in the world like Myshkin - perhaps he was one himself, perhaps he observed and understood one. Myshkin, perhaps because of his own 'illness' is attuned to everyone else's needs - sacrificing his own needs as totally without value. So what happens when two women fall in love with him (strange though each of them is)? He wants to love them both. Neither can accept that, but still he cannot let go. This seems to be a recipe for disaster (and in some ways it is), but Myshkin flourishes where he might not have because he has the most extraordinary view of the value of every moment of life. Early on he describes a guillotine execution he had observed and how the man being executed clung to every moment of his life - trying to maximise the richness of it even as the blade came down on his neck. Does Dostoevsky really believe that this is an idiotic way to live life? Or is he recommending that we should all pay more attention, be less flippant with the time that passes us by?

One of the women who fall in love with Myshkin is one of Madame Epanchin's daughters - Aglaia Ivanovna. Despite her love, Aglaia torments Myshkin (but that's not of much significance to him). Here is a quote that meant so much to me - a real insight into Myshkin's personality. 'There is no doubt that the mere fact that he could come and see Aglaia, again without hindrance, that he was allowed to talk to her, sit with her, walk with her was the utmost bliss to him; and who knows, perhaps, he would have been satisfied with that for the rest of his life.'

This novel is hard work, and it's not a happy story. But it is rewarding in its insight into human nature. If you read it you will have to decide for yourself if people like Myshkin actually do exist. And if you happen to meet one - how should you interact with them?

other recommendations:
explore the philosophy of phenomenology - I don't have a preferred book to suggest
as a contrast - 'Spring Torrents' - Ivan Turgenev (the author is mentioned in 'The Idiot')
'Under Western Eyes' - Joseph Conrad
'Sylvie and Bruno' - Lewis Carroll

for more information click here

It doesn't get better

This is my first of I believe will be many reviews so I will be brief. The Idiot is one of the best if not the best novel I have ever read. I liked it so much I read it twice.

Beautifully written

This book is one of Dostoyevsky's best, and in my opinion is very accurate in it's depiction of society's view of honesty and decency. Generally speaking honesty and kindness have a tendancy to arose suspicions and contempt amongst the average people you may be so unfortunate to encounter. In a collective society of ignorance and weakness decency is a concept that will encourage a mob like vengeance. Jose Rizal said it quite plainly "The world hates an honest man.", and the biggest social block our prince here has is his inability or unwillingness to be cruel or petty. He is provided with several opportunities to hurt those who try to hurt him, but he does not act upon any of them in fact he often seems saddened by the potential for suffering in his peers.
Tragically we have always been subject to an attitude that kindness is a form of weakness and this has slowed the progress of our advancement since the beginning of time.

for more information click here

Persecution Complex Self-Test

Dostoevsky's, "THE IDIOT"

Very few of the reviews, herein contained, speak to, or address, the real subject to which Dostoevsky is clearly explaining. I have not read them all, but many reviews actually address specific aspects of the book, taking the story, as written, literally, considering those diversions, the obfuscations, as if they had anything to do with the main point the author was clearly stating. Readers eruditely create importance, then treating as important, much intentionally planted tangential fodder. Not very deeply hidden behind the trees is the forest. The trees were planted by the author so that readers would actually see some kind of story other than the author's main point, or, in this analogy, the forest, being so obviously what the author assumed we readers would have the insight to grasp. Props are everywhere, used only as examples of the mechanism Dostoevsky was using to make his singular message clear. The names and events within the novel exist only for the purpose of, and as a method to illustrate his philosophy about what happened to Christ. It is curious to see well educated reviewers take the bait and run with it, trying to explain the gravity of individual aspects of the book and analyzing characters within the story, when in actuality the weight deserving that kind of intellectual attention is simply not there and was not put there by the author, only by some readers. To emphasize anything but what the author's story suggests is to be mislead by the author himself, allowing the author's irrelevant subplots to divert the attention of some readers from the message. To discuss individual characters within the book is simply irrelevant, being an exercise in further missing the point. To compare the story to any other authors' works, contrasting various aspects of this book with any other book, is just wasting paper and ink. This book is well known to all psychiatrists as the persecution complex test for their patients. If any individual identifies with the riddled body and soul of the protagonist then they are suffering from what is referred to as a classic Persecution, or Christ Complex, which, BTW, is a pathologic condition. The unrelenting, unwavering innocence which persevered in the protagonist, even in the face of lessons that should have been learned about self-protection along that treacherous path, leads to one thing and one thing only, which is that raw society, will chew you up and spit you out. Most human beings get burned enough along the way of life to appropriately lie to oneself and others, covering up vulnerabilities sufficiently in order to self preserve ones' fitting in, eschewing exposing one's jugular to any onlooker, thus avoiding being a willing target for the cruel volleys hurled at everyone, by everyone, in order to weed out the competition threatened by any and all, a characteristic inherent in, and expected from all other individuals they meet. Within the fallen state of the animal earth the laws of the jungle prevail. Christ did not self-modify, self-adjust, self-protecting, accordingly. Not adjusting to the state of his surroundings, the conditions where the lack of grace prevailed, within which state he found himself, he would not survive. As a result of his maintained nonresistance stance, he was chewed up and spit out by the world. Even though recognizing the surroundings within which he was, which of him would heartlessly take advantage, once finding himself deeply immersed in its animal nature, finding himself right in the middle of this fallen state and the grinding nature of the expressions of society's territorial imperatives, society's natural tendency to dispatch the weak without feeling or remorse, never encountering divinely driven interactions, Dostoevsky still kept his protagonist, his Christ, consistently nonresistant and as a result, the result which will always eventuate, Dostoevsky allowed his persecuted man to stay unprotected and was, as will always happen to a person like that, to be torn apart by the natural world. The lead character in the book never seemed t figure that out, actually acting dumb, not reading the indicators, or he would have hardened into it for his own survival, as we all do to varying extents, don't we. If we walk around through our individual daily lives and have accumulated a long list of people by whom we have been offended and are constantly trying to decide if we should forgive them, then we have fallen victim to the classic persecution complex illustrated by this Idiot which Dostoevsky characterizes. In reality, the healthy individual has been offended very few times. Most people who actually give offense, are themselves tortured from within and if we are kind we pre-forgive most people for their self-generated outbursts, knowing those indiscretions have very little to do with us, not allowing ourselves to assume the easy offense receptive posture, avoiding it right from the moment we get out of bed in the morning.
BWR 29 JULY 2008

for more information click here

Ironic Title? Myshkin is introspective and innocent

Dostoevsky wrote The Idiot after his much praised Crime and Punishment, so it is only fitting that this novel wouldn't have received the same acclaim of this masterpiece. And, while this novel doesn't have the sharp, precise narration and pull that Crime and Punishment had, it still is a significant work for what it strives to accomplish--the depth of the individual spirit.

Dostoevsky once wrote, "They call me a psychologist. That is not true, I'm only a realist in the higher sense; that is, I portray all the depths of the human soul." It's fitting he said this, because this novel exacts this same belief in many ways--many of the characters save the hero Prince Myshkin are greedy, shallow, conceited, scandalous, and back-stabbing. Yet with all the negative aspects of society, Myshkin brings a benevolent force and reaction to those who encounter him--some are affected in a positive light, if only for a small amount of time, while others remain without change. The great contrast gives credence to the depth of Prince Mushin, and for the most part makes his title "the idiot" quite ironic. His soul is examined and tested in many facets of life.

Prince Myshkin's "immovability" is depicted in encounters with various scandals and controversies. He doesn't change to conform to the conditions of society, and often doesn't seem to be swayed by greed or other pleasures, which sometimes leads to a strange reaction for those who meet him. Consider his first encounter with Aglaia and her family, when Madame questions him about who he is. Rather than being typical, he relates a story about Maria in the Swiss village and this gives a clue as to his idea of what love is. He feels a genuine pity for a girl, despite the fact that he doesn't really "love" her in a serious sense. This tale illustrates the sacrifice that the Prince often makes for people. This story makes a deep impact on Aglaia, even though she often laughs at Myshkin for his simplicity. Dostoevsky does a fantastic job of making the Prince both innocent and introspective at the same time; he is more reflective than other characters and is driven by philosophy and good will rather than worldly gains.

The main crux of the story is Prince Myshkin and the love triangle between two distinctly different women--Aglaia and Nastassya Filippova. Aglaia, despite her childlike quality, seems to have instances where she is close to bursting forth into adulthood. However, her restlessness makes it difficult for anything to happen between her and the Prince. Meanwhile, Nastassya Filippova is a character who is outwardly a scandalous woman unfavorable and unequal to the Prince. Inwardly, she is has moments when it appears that there could be some genuine love for the Prince, but these are negated by her relationship with Rogozhin. One of the flaws of Prince Myshkin is trying to appeal and love both women in his singular way. He ultimately must choose, but cannot.

There are some moments when the novel gets a bit bogged down with its "soap opera" like quality or long winded-speeches, but, still, this is a novel with many redeeming qualities. I think this one will appeal much more to those who have already read Dostoevsky and understand his style.

for more information click here