Customer Reviews

The Idiot (Classic Fiction)

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

 

 

Most of us have probably heard the phrase, "Why, that was as unreadable as a Russian novel!" Of course, they're probably thinking about Tolstoy's War and Peace. The fact of the matter is this: I was 18 or 19, in AP English, VERY skeptical about these so-called "classics". But then we read Notes from Underground and my view of Russian literature was permanently changed. As a matter of fact, I liked NfU SO much that I read THE IDIOT of my own initiative and--get this--liked it MORE than NfU. Hey, how can you resist a story about a diseased Prince who's coming home to Russia after being in an Asylum? There were just so many quotable and likable passages in this book. My bookmark soon became full with page numbers. Towards the beginning, the Prince and a servant have an interesting conversation concerning one of Dostoyevsky's main interests: Crime and Punishment. That particular scene details a French execution. Quite a while later, Dostoyevsky retells that French execution story and DOES IT BETTER THAN THE FIRST TIME. But the book is not always serious. One of the things that I like about Dostoyevsky is that he has a dark sense of humor. You would too, if you were in debt, epileptic, and were spared from the firing squad AT THE LAST SECOND. I laughed out loud when I got to the part about the Cigar and Poodle. You'll find it in Chapter 9 or so. Also, there's a character named Prince S. Now THAT is a pun. Of course, being a tranlated work, who's to say whether it was intentional or not? Yes, this is a very long book, but I REALLY enjoyed it. Hopefully you'll come to agree.

I came to Dostoevsky through the back door, so to speak. In about 1958 or 1959, a small art theater in Dallas, Texas was showing a movie of THE IDIOT that had been filmed in Russia in 1958, under the direction of Ivan Pyriev, a leading Russian director. How this movie ever got from Russia to Dallas or where it disappeared to after I saw it, I don't know. I do know that it is impossible to find.

All this is by way of introduction. This stark, black and white film so fascinated me that I had to read the book. THE IDIOT had such an impact on me that I felt compelled to search out and read everything I could find by and about Dostoevsky. His body of work then led me to many of the other great Russian writers; Tolstoy, Turgenev, Gogol, and, of course, the father of them all, Aleksandr Pushkin. I even discovered some of the "lesser" Russian writers such as Goncharev. In my case, at least, one good book led to years of wonderful reading.

THE IDIOT, the book that started it all for me, stands on its own as a wonderful piece of literature. It can be read by itself, or as a part of the body of Dostoevsky's work, or within the framework of great Russian literature. Attempting to determine which book or which of these authors is better is an exercise in futility and, if you'll pardon me, of sophistry. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A good book is a good book is a good book."

Dostoevsky did say that THE IDIOT was his favorite of his books. Perhaps that was because of certain biographical aspects of the book. Dostoevsky, like Myshkin, was an epileptic. Myshkin returns to St. Petersburg and its callous society after years of absence during which he underwent medical treatment for his "idiocy." Dostoevsky, in real life, returned to St. Petersburg after a long absence that consisted of his incarceration in Siberia for four years followed by an additional four years of enforced army duty. These are not the only biographical aspects of THE IDIOT. I would not want to be misunderstood, however. Dostoevsky incorporated aspects of his own life into the book but it is not, in any way, a work of fictionalized autobiography.

Prince Myshkin, the "idiot" of the title, is as near to being a saint as is possible for a flesh and blood human being. His saintliness is accompanied by naivete. He is naive to such a degree that he cannot anticipate the consequences of his actions. His attempts to do good often reap havoc on those about whom he cares. Because he loves one woman and pities another, he inadvertantly ends up being a destructive force in both their lives. In trying to redeem one, who is essentially unredeemable, he indirectly causes her to be murdered. From the standpoint of pure innocence a case could be made that Myshkin was the model for Jerzy Kosinski's Chauncey Gardener.

Dostoevsky is certainly a master of the psychological novel, and THE IDIOT is a novel that delves into the soul of a man. He investigates the impact that a corrupt society has on the soul of an incorruptable man and, conversely, the impact of goodness and spirituality on a corrupt society which is unwilling to be swayed. I wish that I could say that society was improved for having been exposed to Myshkin, but it wasn't changed any more than the wealthy of Rome were changed by their exposure to the early Christian martyrs.

THE IDIOT is a book that is well worth reading. It is not necessary to "ease into it" by reading another of his novels first as has been suggested elsewhere on these pages. What is necessary is to bring a thoughtful mind along with you when you sit down to what should be one of the greater reading experiences that may come your way.

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

This is probably one of the five most important books in my life. I sincerely believe that reading it will make anyone a better person. This is, by far, Dostoyesvkys' proudest achievement.

As background information, I have read most of Dostoevsky's novels including some of his early works and all of his most popular 6 or 7 novels. Among those, I have read some from Oxford Classics and some Vintage translations by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. It took me about a week to read the 575 pages in this present Wordsworth Classic reviewed here.

I bought and read the Wordsworth Classics version of this Dostoevsky novel The Idiot. This is a minimalist book with little more than the text. For example, Wordsworth does not even give the names of the translators and the introduction to Dostoevsky and the novel is very brief, just three pages long, and it is oriented more towards a biography of the writer than giving the reader much analysis of the story and the themes. Having said that, the translation appears to be smooth and it is highly readable, and it is good value for the money. My initial impression was that the font was small, but it seems to have the same number of pages as other printers of the same novel. In any case, there is lots of analysis on the web which mitigates the need to pay more to buy analysis and the text. So, I would recommend this text only version.

This is one of Dostoevsky's better novels. It has a clear story and it has strong characters led by Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin the protagonist: he is "the idiot." He returns to Russia after spending some years in a hospital or clinic in Switzerland. The story flows smoothly interrupted by only one diversion about a man who is just mildly related to the main thrust of the story: Ippolit. Some consider this part to be brilliant. I thought that it was interesting but did not add that much to the overall story. Most will find the novel to be near perfect but perhaps a bit long.

The book is an opportunity for Dostoevsky to present a morally perfect but physically flawed Christian character, and then to show how the character interacts with an imperfect Russian society. That is the main theme. We follow the story of six odd but interesting primary characters and about twenty secondary characters who represent a cross-section of Russian society.

This is one of his best novels and some might consider it to be a masterpiece and that the protagonist Prince Myshkin is an important literary character. As a novel it is not as good as The Brothers Karamazov which is Dostoevsky's best. It is entertaining and it has a good story, although not what one describe as a compelling read, although the second half is better in that regard. Dostoevsky gives many comments on morality and the Christian faith. It is a story of good versus evil, but with the edges or boundaries slightly blurred.

There is a moderate level of drama and uncertainty which keeps the reader's interest throughout. This is an excellent buy and a good value from Wordsworth Classics.

I think this is very interesting book .Dostoevski is describing how perfectly clean soals can't survive on this planet.I recomend it to everyone.