Customer Reviews

The Idiot (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is one of the more famous of Dostoyevsky's novels, and quite rightly so as it has his very-unique blend of psychology, philosophy and an unrelenting view of the bleakest recesses of the soul.

I read the novel in the original Russian, so this isn't a review of any particular translation but the work itself.

In brief, the book centres around a Prince who has returned to Russia after being treated for mental illness in Switzerland since his childhood (hence the idiot). He quickly becomes involved within the upper-middle eschellons of St Petersburgian society, as people become fascinated by his direct honesty, simplicity and compassion. He becomes emotionally involved with a Fallen Woman, and this develops into a love triangle with another woman, ultimately ending in --- you guessed it! - tragedy. The Idiot is portrayed as the symbol of a child-like innocence: he genuinely wants everyone to live in harmony and love. However, the falseness, politics and backstabbing of the world of Russian middle-nobility will have none of that.

The plot is quite complicated - but not in terms of twists. The story is quite simple in terms of what happened, however much of it is told inside-out, focusing on the internal world of the characters. So, if you feel like you've missed something - a reason for a character's comment, an event etc, chances are, this will be revealed later on.

Dostoyevsky dwells on the extreme minute aspects of the emotional lives of his charactes. This is the richest aspect of the novel - and these emotions possess all the contradiction and chaos that real people have. There are no total heroes in the book - but I found a part of myself identifying with the Prince, as the grown child who just doesn't want to accept the "adult" behaviour of interpersonal relationships. I think it's expected in reading the book that some characters will be loathed, some found amusing and admired, some arousing interest - but not loved. This is because the world portrayed within the book is very inaccessible. It's hard to identify with anyone in terms of more than the generality of emotion - not just because the setting is remote, but because the characters experience thoughts and ideas that are so different to what most people would. I think this inaccessability was deliberate - as we feel not-quite-at-home in the world of the book, so it highlights how the Prince is not quite at home there - and that's where the sublime feeling is derived from.

On a side note, be prepared for the difficulty of keeping track of names, as people are called by their surnames on certain occasions and the rest is first name and father's name. With heaps of characters and many Russian names, it all becomes a mess. But with some concentration (perhaps making a cast of characters?) that can be overcome and a great read will be had.

A great book that will interact with your emotional world - if you don't mind heavy reading.

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.

The Idiot of the title is Prince Myshkin. Myshkin suffers from epilepsy and is very highly strung! When the novel opens he is arriving in St. Petersburg following three years in an expensive Swiss Clinic. Myshkin's rich patron a Russian nobleman has provided to pay for the expenses of his psyciatric care. Upon arrival in St. Petersburg the Prince is soon involved with a wealthy middle class family; meets the evil Rogohzin and the mysterious beauty Natasya. Myshkin is also romantically linked with the beautiful but shallow Aglaya youngest of three daughters of a family to whom he is distantly related.
The plot involves Dostoevsky's look at love. Myshkin represents innocent, Christ-like love. Gavrin is a character representing greed seeking to wed a rich woman. Rogohzin the fiery noble with murder in his heart and passion in his love-hate for Natasya.He is symbolic of humankind's passionate nature. We also meet such interesting characters as Ippolit a young man dying of TB who writes a long (and at times boring) statement of his view of life.
The novel would probably be shortened by a modern editor! Long passages deal with philsophy evincing the author's disdain for Western culture and his strong Messianic Slavic beliefs in Russian orthodoxy.
The book can become mesmerizing as many of the characters are dreamy sorts wont to spin out their thoughts in long monologues reminiscent of the otiose figures populating the Chekhovian stage. Dostoevsky had been sentenced to Siberia for his participation in a plot to assassinate the Tsar. He, therefore, knew suffering and allows his characters to act in
accord with his own tormented, suffering character.
The novel is not the place to begin when delving into Dostoevsky. It is a flawed masterpiece usually rated below his "The Brothers Karamazov" and
"Crime and Punishment." Dostoevsky impresses this reviewer with his modern concerns with suffering, human angst and a deeply flawed society of secular skepticism. He is a Christian writer who is not afraid to inject his belief in the redemptive salvic work of Jesus Christ.
Myshkin is an innocent man who is unable to cope with modern society. At the end of the novel this butterfly of hope is forced backed into the cocoon of sanatarium care. Myshkin like Don Quixote has tilted his love against society and been defeated. Or has he? Dostoevsky would explore the Myshkin type in his greater novel "The Brothers Karamazov" through the Christ-like figure of Alyosha.
This is a long book which will test the reader's patience. One must deal with long Russian names that my be confusing. It is a worthwhile experience which you will never forget.

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.

Princy Myshkin is perceived by others around him as being an idiot, but I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether he really is one. Some characters perceive him to be the most trustworthy man they have ever meant, while others call him an intellectual and a democrat. Yet, most revert back to calling him an idiot.

The book is full of the basest characters, and only Myshkin can offer them a shot at redemption. He sees them for their true selves, good or bad, and loves them for who they are. Myshkin has been called a Russian Christ and is one of the most provocative characters that I have come accross in literature.

In addition to Dostoevsky's strong characterization, this book also includes the author's critique of capital punishment, the role of women in society, and the role of aristocracy. The book is both introspective and political, although not overly so. I found it to be a new favorite of mind, and I am sure it will stick with me for awhile. It is a very good novel.

The more I read and re-read of Dostoevsky, the more I am forced to conclude that he was every bit as medieval philosophically as Tolstoy, at least epistemologically. The most fundamental theme of all of his major works that I've read, including Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and even The Brothers Karamazov (though in a much more subtle and sophisticated form) is that reason and the intellect are corrupting and one should instead be guided by faith and feelings. But Dostoevsky is easier to stomach because his feelings are relatively humanitarian, compared to Tolstoy's obscene misanthropy and misogyny. And for an artistic vision of why Christian morality is utterly impracticable, this is probably the greatest novel ever written...Christlike Prince Myshkin's fate is as inevitable as it is horrifying.

First, let me respond to the other review on this edition. It seems that many long works of the 19th century are "guilty" of the same thing--saying a lot more than necessary to make the point. Yes, The Idiot, like Les Miserable, like War and Peace, could have been reduced to 200 to 300 pages, even less, but that wasn't the style of the time. My recommendation in approaching these works, as with much we ever do, is to take the Zen approach: enjoy the process of life presented in the book without much attention to the goal. Once one reaches the goal, in the case finishing the book, the person is at once unfulfilled again, needing something else to read and intrigue the mind. So enjoy the present moment in the book, any book.

That being said, The Idiot is rather curious to me on one point. I don't know if this is part of Russian style, but why did Dostoevsky find it necessary, in virtually every case, to use full names, even when one person is addressing a close friend or family member. Also, why does virtually every person have 2 names, names which aren't even similar to each other? I highly recommend, if you want to keep the characers straight, that you keep a list in your book as characters show up as to what their dual names are. I mean, you will find one person addressed with their two different names in adjacent sentences, making it seem like two different people are referred to, but it's one person. It is for this one reason that I gave the work 4 stars. If it represents the historical formality and idiosyncresy of the time, then I give four stars instead of five for 19th-century Russian idiocy.

Finally, the point of the book. Who is the idiot here? It is clear that Myshkin, who is naive and having epilepsy, is the idiot. But his naivety is not weird, really. His naivety is actually compassion, a Christ-like attribute. And certainly, epilepsy is not a mood disorder or mental limitation, except maybe it was perceived that way at the time. The question is whether Dostoevsky actually perceived Myshkin as an idiot. I believe it is possible he did not; that is, the author may have been mocking the general population's definition of idiot. When I finished the book, and actually before finishing, I realized that while Myshkin is the idiot of the title, he is actually about the only sane person in the story. Virtually all the other characters act like idiots, morons, jerks, etc. It may be that Dostoevsky was mocking "normal" society. If he wasn't, he nonetheless did so, and quite effectively and satisfyingly.

If you haven't read the Idiot, you haven't read Dostoyevsky. If this were the only book he ever wrote, his place in the annals of literature would no doubt be as secured.

Other books to read if you like The Idiot:

Roman Payne's "Crepuscule"
Maxim Gorky
Gogol's "Dead Souls"

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.

I bought this book because I was halfway through the book and I lost it on travel. The book arrived in the time it was promised and the quality was also as described. This is a great classic by Dosteovsky.