Customer Reviews

The Idiot (Everyman's Library)

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

What could have prompted me to first read "The Idiot" at age 13 on a beach vacation with my family I can not recall. What I do recall, however, is that I was fully engrossed day after day in a world of ideas, people and places far beyond my experience. Having now just "re-read" it 39 years later (following Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov), I know I couldn't possibly have digested all of its ideas at that age: atheism vs. Christianity; nihilism vs. a dying social order; Eros vs. charity; truth vs. artifice; id vs.ego and superego. And yet, I also sense I know what captivated me even then.

The characters in this novel, though usually explained as symbolic of the ideas they represent, are yet the most vividly realized characters I had ever "read" then, and still. The real-time manner in which they are drawn and followed is as if the author simply recorded their actions and conversations as and where they happened. We get to know who these people are, not through narrative description, but, as if by "candid camera", observing what they say, withhold, do, and fail to do. What emerges are fascinating, at times frightening and at times affectionate portraits of real and troubled humans: Lizaveta, the flighty, but loving society mother; General Epanchin, the successful but utterly conventional man of the house; Aglaya, the childish but delightful beauty who resents her sister's and parents' expectation for her; Ganya, who wants money and love, but plays the wounded martyr while more obviously blaming his father for his failures at both; Ivolgin, the pathetic figure of an aging man who aches for dignity and respect but who's former glory is long gone and mostly imagined; and Lebedev, the likeable sycophant and name-dropper.

The more central characters to the events, the murderously passionate Rogozhin, and the self-scorning beauty Nastasya, are more starkly drawn. But even those portraits are created not through direct thought narration or narrative description, but by the author's leading us to read between and behind the lines of their words, conversations with others, and public "displays".

As for the Prince himself, he is often said to symbolize the human side of a Christ-like man. That, of course, is true; but (as can also be seen in Aloysha, the hero of The Brothers Karamazov), he is as much child-like as he is like a Christ. The Prince's honesty, naiveté, trust, and simple affection for those around him, are all qualities that he seems to maintain as a man because he is really only entering the "adult" world of social Petersburg after a long and sheltered upbringing among younger children in Switzerland. When he enters this tangled world of adult competition, insecurity, envy, ambition and intrigue, though much older, he's in the most essential ways still the child that was sent by his benefactor to Switzerland for help with his illness.

One comes away with the strong impression (reinforced by the portrait of Aloysha, hero of Brothers Karamazov) that Dostoevsky saw children as embodying the ideal of spirit that we strive to maintain or regain as adults. The prince's obvious affection for the loyal young boy Kolya and the compassionate young girl Vera, in this book, and similar bonds between his hero Aloysha and the children in Karamozov Brothers, show Dostoevsky's admiration for the child in man.

The Idiot shows what happens when a simple, trusting and exceptionally compassionate child-man enters the more corrupt world of human adulthood without the experience to navigate, or even to perceive, the traps and snares laid by more worldly humans whose innocence has been chipped or stripped bare by ambition, envy, greed, despair or old age.

On another level, The Idiot is an allegory for the Christ story itself- with Prince Myshkin coming from the Swiss sanatorium into the "the world" of Petersburg with a mission to live among, love and save its people. The complications of heart and mind when his human emotions unexpectedly collide with the more selfish and less willing of those around him are at the center of this story of a second coming re-imagined.

One might be left, at the awfully tragic end of this novel, with the idea that Dostoevsky himself was of the same mind as Ippolit, the suicidal atheist, who his hero befriends of compassion. That is, from the disastrous conclusion, one might think that Dostoevsky believes that Holbein's painting (central to the story) of the disfigured and lifeless body of Christ the corpse, shows the impossibility of a divine spirit in (and after) a wretched human existence. Yet, it is with such affection that he describes the many and contradictory (and often delightful) sides of the "ordinary" people in this story, that I felt the opposite: that is, that Dostoevsky recognized not just in the tragically compassionate Prince, and the young Vera and Kolya, but also in the few and fleeting glimpses of love, friendship, compassion and even real dignity of the fallen or struggling others, that there is a redemptive force that underpins the human experience. If there were any doubt of that after reading this novel, it is laid to rest in the Brothers Karamazov, whose likewise tragic denouement yet ends on a note more obviously reflective of Dostoevsky's ultimate optimism.

Crime and Punishment, a psychological crime story, showed Dostoevsky's incredible genius for "writing" the inside of the human mind. Brothers Karamozov was a morality tale that laid out, on a grand scale, yet in great detail, the most essential questions of good and evil, id and ego, life and after-life. For me, The Idiot did what both of these other great novels did, but was the most captivating of the three, because it was so human, intimate and real in its characters' discourse, actions and exposition. It was much less overt than the Brothers Karamazov, and less psychologically analytical than Crime and Punishment. But of the three, the timeless characters of "The Idiot" last most indelibly in the mind.

Having previously read my first Dostoevsky (Crime and Punishment) I was literally chomping at the bit to start reading something else of his. I am not altogether sure as to why I found The Idiot to be the most appealing, it probably wasn't the synopsis, because I, in my ignorance, thought I was buying "The Possessed". I realized this as I pulled away from the book store, but didn't worry about it. Dostoevsky is Dostoevsky, right? Well, sort of. I was shocked when I did not find the anti-hero I expected, but Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin, a pure and beautiful soul who I loved from the start. It was hard not to cheer for him throughout the course of the novel, and to feel his pain at the corrupt and confusing society that surrounded him. He is torn apart by his first love for the intriguing Nastasya Filippovna, and then later Aglaia Ivanovna, equally intriguing.

I'll be the first to admit that though I loved this book I struggled through certain portions of it, namely nearly every scene Lebedev is involved in, and Ippolit's letter. The book has a very 'meandering' quality to it, and you get the feeling at times that Dostoevsky didn't have the slightest clue how he would finish it, and so stalled for time in certain areas. This didn't really diminish the book's quality, it simply made it harder to follow. Also, towards the end it seems as if Dostoevsky finally knows, and he finally hurries off.

But, there is, perhaps, some of the greatest writing ever put on paper within these pages. Scenes such as Prince Myshkin's oratory on capital punishment, the party at Nastasya Fillippovna's, Prince Myshkin in the house of Rogozhin, and the most chilling scene in Rogozhin's bedroom. The beauty, terror, and despair in these scenes are so genuine that it's impossible not to be swept into Dostoevsky's world. So, would I recommend it? Of course, but not to someone unaquainted with Dostoevsky. Crime and Punishment is a much better place to start. But once you're acquainted with Dostoevsky's writings dive into this book, and you'll find yourself longing to help the poor Prince Myshkin, the idiot.

Written immediately after CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, Dostoevsky gives us THE IDIOT, whose hero, Prince Myshkin, is gentle and Christ-like - the polar opposite of Raskolnikov, the nihilist murderer. Taken together, the two novels give us a fascinating critique of Russian (and Western) society from the perspective of a sinner and a saint, and of a society that has produced both.

Admittedly, THE IDIOT must be seen a minor novel in comparison to CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. It lacks its psychological power and narrative drive. But I would suggest that the greatness of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is enhanced by reading THE IDIOT. Further, I would argue that much of what is seen to be the greatness of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT originates in the location of the narrator's point of view inside the teeming and tortured mind of the ultimate outsider, Raskolnikov. The third person narrator inside a single consciousness became the "default" practice in the late 19th and early 20th century. This is perhaps why the story of Prince Myskin, our gentle insurgent in THE IDOT who is nearly always seen inside of a Russian society, and whose story is told in a mix of omniscient narrator and from Myshkin's point of view is seen to be old-fashioned or hard to read.

I would argue that given the nature of the story Dostoyevsky is telling here - of a society that cannot cope with an honest and compassionate man that the omniscient narrator's voice is warranted and appropriate (unlike a number of reviewers below for whom this technique comes off as creaky and plodding). To tell the story he wants to tell, Dostoyevsky must move from one drawing room to another, one set of eyewitnesses, gossips, and minor characters to another. These set pieces - such as Natasya's "party" where she chooses whom she will marry, or the nihilist Ipollit's reading of his Confession, also locate THE IDIOT more in the realm of traditional 19th century novel of manners than CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. And its ostensible subject matter - marriage - places it squarely in the genre.

I find it sad that the set pieces in THE IDIOT can seem interminable to some modern readers. Yes, characters do hold forth for pages and pages, propounding theories, relating anecdotes in excruciating detail. In the society of the 19th century, even in the chaotic society of post-feudal Russia where the social order was in flux, the conversational customs of a court society still held sway. Even in the considerably more democratic United States, the presence of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. at social functions was highly prized by elites because he was universally recognized for his acumen as a speaker and conversationalist. These days we don't talk anywhere near as intelligently, as passionately or grandly these marvelous characters, and our suburbanized circumstances reduce our chances for unsettling social encounters as well. Which do you more often attend - parties featuring a stew of anarchic social criticism, bizarre personal attacks and grotesque dissembling, or a dull pudding of sitcom japes and bumpersticker politics? Which would you prefer?

Dostoyevsky fills his drawing rooms with challenges to the status quo, with intemperate invective, with radical claims on the political and economic system. At the same time he gives voice to conservative views, e.g., that Russia was better before Alexander II freed the serfs (in 1861, only 6 years prior to the publication of THE IDIOT), better before the aristocracy began to rub shoulders with powerful merchants and usurers, better before the atheists, nihilists and anarchists attacked the church and the social structure.

Interestingly, many of these contretemps are, as in so much 19th Century fiction, posed in connection with "the woman question." Our heroine, Natasya, raised by her guardian and seduced at a young age. is intent upon exposing Russian society for its hypocritical attitudes and brutal behavior toward women. Brilliant and beautiful, Natasya concoct a series of circumstances that both outrage and shame conventional society. She is the demonic critic of Russian society, her vindictive spirit contrasting sharply with Prince Myshkin's penchant for compassion and forgiveness. Together they form a unique double-edged critique of the bourgeoisie. And both are broken by their society's cruel intolerance and vast hypocrisy.

Prince Myshkin's conversation marks him among members of his society an "idiot" because he speaks forthrightly and answers truthfully without regard for the consequences. So disturbing is this behavior that Aglaya, the woman he hopes to marry, tells him not speak at the gathering at which he is being introduced to high society as a suitor. But driven by the onset of an epileptic fit, he disobeys and gives himself up to a remarkable speech in which his praise for the assembled company, his views on politics and religion are interpreted by most as an insult, and by many as the ravings of a madman. His speech is a form of social suicide, self-murder, and as such the flip side of Raskolnikov's homicide.

In the largest sense, what's at stake in these conversations and disputes is no less than the soul of Russia. Through the prince's speech Dostoyevsky poses the question as to whether Russia will reawaken to her deep and unique Christian heritage and behave, like the prince, with virtue, compassion and honor, or become like the empires to the West whose money-grubbing ways have begun to infect Russia and her people.

THE IDIOT has flaws. There is too much disquisition and exposition even for a 19th century novel. Sometimes, Dostoyevsky will vamp along for a few pages, trying to figure out what to do next. But still, THE IDIOT is well worth reading by itself, or even better, in combination with CRIME AND PUNISHMENT for its psychological acuity and its devastating dissection of a unique social world under stress.

I first discovered Dostoyevsky a few months ago when in Iraq when I found "Crime and Punishment" in a box of books donated to troops. I found CAP to be an astoundingly good book and began to look for more Russian literature.

I decided on "The Idiot" because it was another one of Dostoyevsky's most famous works but not quite as daunting as "The Brothers Karamazov."

Now that I've finished the book, my verdict seems to be in line with what a lot of other peopole are saying--it's good, but not quite a great as Crime and Punishment.

That being said, "The Idiot" is a very different sort of a book. It is not a fast-paced literary thriller but a rather slow-moving tragic drama. The main character, Prince Myshkin, is a very honest and compassionate man who sometimes has stunning insights into human affairs. However, because of his inability to see evil in others, his simple mannerisms, and his mental illness, others see him as an idiot.

The book describes Prince Myshkin's love affairs with two women who are ultimately unattainable. Along the way, Dostoyevsky creates a very memorable and admirable character.

This one takes a bit of patience, particularly when trying to keep track of all the Russian names and relations of the minor characters. But if you stick with it, you'll come away with an understanding of the sad fact that good people don't always get their just desserts.

I try to avoid giving five stars as a small gesture towards reducing Amazon's version of grade inflation, but can't help it here.

The edition:
These Everyman cloth editions are just excellent. P&V's translation flows beautifully. The paper is high quality and the font is easy on the eyes. The book simply feels good in your hands. I'm tired of cheaply printed versions of classics--this edition does justice to its content.

The task of reading it:
A reading group provides incentive to keep up the pace. I read this in a few weeks, 250 pp in the last three days. This is exhausting but if you can find the stamina to get through it in a short time it's better I think--the novel really inhabits your head so the impact is greater. The only place where I struggled was getting through Ippolit's interminable letter. At this pace you feel a bit of D's "brain fever" yourself.

The novel itself:
It's a great choice for a book club because it opens up so many topics for discussion. For example:

--The distinctions among innocence, idiocy, and mere stupidity. How the prince's innocence waxes and wanes according to the needs of the plot.
--The expedience of "fever"--does fever absolve the characters of responsibility for their actions? (See also Crime and Punishment). If it doesn't, what is its point?
--Similarly, epilepsy. What difference does it make that he is epileptic? Plotwise, not much?
--Love as plot device. "Love" happens as if turned on by a switch. Both female leads are beautiful leading to wondering if the love is infatuation. Falling in "love" with a beautiful women is a mistake not specific to idiots indeed has been the downfall of many a wise man. What if one or both of the love interests were simply ordinary looking?
--Once caught in prince's (lady trouble) dilemma, how might a non-innocent have been able to recover? No obvious solution, even for a wise man.
--D's seeming disdain for work--anybody with a job is a beast of burden. Originality is more important than responsibility. His artistic characters lose money, lend money to nogoodniks, give it away, gamble it away, even burn it in a fire. None of this is judged to be "idiotic". Prince conveniently loses enough of his fortune to shysters to demonstrate his innocence, but manages to wise up (not described--see variability of innocence above) and hang on to enough of it to maintain status in his aristocratic circle. Money is only something you ought to have enough of to be able to make dramatic gestures that demonstrate your disinterest in the practical aspects of life. To actually go and earn it doing something of value to society reveals you to be not very bright at best, and, worst of all sins to D, "unoriginal".

But the plot is just something to hang the characters on. The psychological insights to be found on nearly every page are astonishing. When I finished I gasped--my head was full of another man's genius. This is why we read.

Prince Myshkin is just back in Russia after a few years of treatment in Switzerland for epilepsy. Upon his return, he becomes involved in the affairs of his distant relatives as well as those of a new acquaintance, Parfyon Rogozhin. The Prince is guilelessly Christ like and innocent, a prelapsarian figure in a fallen world. This leads to those around him regarding him, at times as idiotic but also endearing. Rogozhin is frantic to gain the love of Nastasya Filippovna. She is a woman of great beauty who has suffered greatly at the hands of her guardian who had kept her as a concubine. Having been degraded by her guardian, Nastasya Filippovna becomes self destructive and acts as if she were attempting to prove that she is a fallen woman. The Prince sees her suffering and seeks to help her, even offering to marry her. This puts him at odds with Rogozhin and yet these two men become like brothers, exchanging crosses as a sign of their friendship. At times Rogozhin seems to be Prince Myshkin's dark doppelganger. Dostoevsky strikes a contrast between light and dark from the start of this novel, juxtaposing descriptions of Rogozhin's dark hair and eyes with Myshkin's blue eyes and light hair. Practically everything that involves Rogozhin is dark, his appearance, his house, the hall in which he tries to kill Myshkin, and the study in which he kills Nastasya Filippovna are all dark. Conversely when Rogozhin tries to kill Myshkin the Prince has an attack of epilepsy and "intense inner light flooded his soul." Prince Myshkin writes a letter to, Aglaia, a young woman he loves as to his "light." Nastasya writes to Aglaia telling her how the Prince regards her: "He thought of you as radiating "light.' Those are his own words, I heard them from him. But without words I knew that you meant "light" to him." Although not in agreement with with everything in Hermann Hesse's essay "Thoughts on The Idiot of Dostoevsky" I like this observation he made about Prince Myshkin "He has had rare instants of intuitive perception, occasional seconds of transcendent exaltation. For a lightning moment he has felt the all-being, the all-feeling, the all-suffering, the all-understanding. He has known all that is in the world. There lies the kernel of his magical being. He has not studied and is not endowed with, mystical wisdom, he has not even aspired to it. He has simply experienced the thing itself." At one point in the novel Prince S. says to Prince Myshkin: "paradise on earth is not easily achieved; but all the same you are counting on paradise in a way; paradise is a difficult thing, Prince, much more difficult than it seems to your wonderful heart. . . ." This lamentably proves true for Prince Myshkin and most of the characters in this novel and yet we are left with a glowing memory of Prince Myshkin's character. The Prince always listens, always understands, he can enter into the soul and suspend his judgement before the human condition. He feels an infinite compassion in `suffering together' with people. He never turns his back, never abandons anybody, always does the little that humans can like listening and forgiving.

I won't go into great detail about the book since you can read the summary. I will only provide this: I rate "The Idiot" four stars only, ONLY, because I compare it to other works by Dostoevsky. I classify his four-star work as being: "Crime and Punishment", "The Idiot" and "House of the Dead". "The Brothers Karamazov" being his 5-star work. IMO.

That being said, I read this book last summer and enjoyed it tremendously. I read Dostoevsky very, very slowly on purpose. I enjoy each sentence, each paragraph and each page like a delicious Scotch. I don't want to finish his books because the characters are so rich. To me, his only competition is Turgenev, and (the greatest work I've yet to read) Joyce's "Ulysses".

I try and imagine someone sculping such beautiful sentences without the use of a word processor to pour over them, arrange and rearrange them. If you're just getting into Dostoevsky , this is a good a place as any to start.

Also, stick to the translations by Pevear and Volokhonsky. Their language is much better than some of the older Penguin versions you're going to find.

I plan on rereading this book again soon.

cheers!

If the title of this review grabbed your attention, you may argue with me. I believe, however, that the Idiot and Anna Karenina vie for this title (sorry, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov). Why?

Dostoevsky has the uncanny knack of including every possible facet of human society, foibles, loves, hopes, dreams and disasters in his novels. (he shares this ability with Leo Tolstoy). I must confess that I've read this novel at least 3 times and this latest translation is head and shoulders above the Constance Garnett version I read as a teenager. Even after three readings, I still did not understand all the nuances until I saw the excellent Russian serial "The Idiot", recently filmed for TV in Russian and starring two superb actors, Yevgeny Mironov and Vladimir Mashkov. Thankfully, a subtitled version is now available on DVD, albeit with horrible English subtitles.

Prince Myshkin is Christ-like in his simplicity and insight, but terribly human in his bewilderment about women and their needs. Dostoevsky rightfully displays the corrupt Russian society that surrounds him like insects on a pin---rather than being an "idiot", Myshkin comes off as the only sane man in the book who due to his simplicity and naivete is ultimately done in by forces he cannot control.

Please skip the former translations and stick with Pevear/Volokhonsky. They do a wonderful job; I shall never read another translator for major Russian literature. As for Russian pulp fiction (the Fandorin series), don't miss them either. They're great fun.

The plot wasn't particularly attention grabbing; however, the stories that are spun by Kolya's father are fantastic. I also like the feel you get of the Russian culture in each of Dostoevsky's books, and this book is no exception. I found it interesting that Dostoevsky suffered from epilepsy, just like the Prince. The idea that "those kind" are particularly loved by God is a relief in an age where "those kind" are avoided like the plague. Overall, it is the least favorite of the three novels I've read by this author; however, it is still worthy to be called a Classic.

I first read this book when I was begining my teenage experiences. Then I got another copy and read it again recently. I am amazed at the lasting influence this book can produce on an impressionable mind.

It seems Dostoyevski wanted to recreate a modern literary Christ and and place him in his contemporary Russia and expose the ridiculousness that he felt was blighting his beloved Russia. For this purpose he created a microcosm of Russia of latter part of nineteenth century in his book with characters from all social classes with varying levels of intellegence. This recreation it self would make any lesser book a classic. But this is not all. He places a Christ figure into this turmoil and allow us to observe the mental, emotional and overt social respose it produces.

This book can make an impressionable teenager to embark on a search for Natasyas to rescue and psycho-analyse the strangers he meets on streets to understand their problems and offer them sympathy and help all because he feels Myshkin deserved better in the modern world he tried to help. A must read for anyone interested in assesing the power of writing to change lives.