Customer Reviews

The Idiot (Oxford World's Classics)

5 star:		(33)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Dostoevsky, that great tortured and feverish soul, wrote this novel after the onslaught of the Nihilists in Russian arts and letters. He felt he was waging a war against the crude and unfeeling Western materialism of the day; he was battling what he saw as a holy war. While authors like Turgenev and Tolstoy regarded the expanding West with (fairly) open arms, Dostoevsky feared it would cause a religious crisis, where faith in Christ was extinguished and ignorance, vanity, and greed would overcome.

This is a towering, exciting novel--perhaps not as great as "Crime & Punishment" or "Brothers Karamazov"--it contains some of his most penetrating insights into religious faith, human compassion, despair, and insanity. Prince Myshkin is of course one of literature's great characters, a Christ-like young man caught up in the treachery of the aristocratic lives of the Yepanchins. The other two main characters, Rogozhin and Nastasya Filippovna, along with Myshkin, form a powerful triangle that, despite their being "off-stage" for much of the novel, drive this novel to its tragic, unavoidable climax.

I do not, however, recommend this book to first time Dostoevsky readers; that should be "Notes from Underground" or "Crime and Punishment." The ideas Dostoevsky explores here need some context and understanding; they may leave the inexperienced reader a bit confused. At least that was my experience! After understanding him and his concerns, this novel cracked wide open. It is a darkly spiritual work, as are all of his; it is also quite disturbing. When young Ippolit describes the Hans Holbein painting "Christ in the Tomb" that adorns the cover of the Oxford edition, we see into the darkest reaches of despair and hopelessness. Indeed, the painting is a Christ that is unresurrected, one that is rotting flesh and cannot, in Dostoevsky's scenario, save humankind. This thought terrifies Rogozhin, Myshkin... and Dostoevsky himself.

What a stunning achievement this work is. I am in awe of it. Simply: Read it.

This is the novel where Dostoevsky's ability as an artist to create fascinating characters reach it's pinnacle. How can you read this novel and not love the Prince Myshkin, with his childlike innocence juxtaposed against his complete mastery into the inner psychologies of people, or not fall in love with Aglaia, the sensitive and mercurial soul that protects herself behind a wall of cynicism and pride? Dostoevsky somehow casts his spell, whereby the the reader is lead into another world populated with seemingly fantastic and insane characters, who nevertheless seem absolutely real. His uncanny insights into the depths of psychology are incredibly trenchant and almost super-human. Nietschze said of Dostoevsky that he is the only psychologist whom he ever learned anything from. So absolutely true! Who else wrote with such insight about people with self destructive tendencies(Natashya), subconscious desires, and the irrational contradictions of the conscious and subconscious. If you read this novel and do not come away with new insight and a better understanding of the psychological workings of others around you, either you are Freud come back from the dead or incredibly dense!

It should be known to most students and readers of Dostoyevsky that he suffered most of his adult life from a severe condition of epilepsy. The seizures from this disease can vary in intensity from the mild to the point where it is so intense, that the individual's heart will simply stop from the violent convulsions. Those afflicted with this condition have commented that after an attack, calmness washes over them and a feeling of deep clarity prevades. A few individuals, including the great Russian writer have claimed that they experienced something akin to a spiritual awakening, only lasting a few moments and sometimes a few hours. The protagonist in The Idiot, Prince Myshkin, also suffers from epilepsy, and therefore has earned the cruel nickname of `Idiot' from his circle of friends and acquaintances. The novel centres on this man and the profound affects he has on those he comes in contact. The Idiot is a nineteenth century thriller, an exposé of Russian aristocracy, intense, unrequited love and spiritual redemption. A semi-autobiographical piece that is one of Dostoyevsky's better novels.

Prince Myshkin's simpleton demeanour, his almost child-like view of the world - naïve, terribly honest and soft good looks - projects to other characters in the novel as someone with saintly qualities, an almost Christ-like aura surrounds him that most perceive when they first meet the man. Having had epilepsy from birth, he has been raised under very controlled circumstances, to finally move into the world without societies basic prejudices and biases. The Prince lacks because of his innocence, the decorum of the then Russian aristocracy. He also has a gift. The Prince has great intuitive insight into the souls of the people he meets. And because he lacks in the social graces, he more often than not will blurt out what he feels with uncanny accuracy, embarrassing the people present. Although he has great insight, there is a dark side, and a price he will eventually have to pay.

The female protagonist is a fascinating woman. Nastasya Filippovna is a person with an incredible strength of will that she uses for her tacit manipulations of the numerous fawning, stumbling men that constantly grovel around her. This woman's mere presence, her stunning beauty all combine to make a very powerful woman. However, below this persona of strength, is an extremely insecure little girl, who only requires love.

Rogozhin is the novel's psychopath, a rogue and scoundrel of the first order. Everything that we could possibly mistrust in a person, Rogozhin personifies as he, without conscience, hurts and manipulates those around him with adept skill.

This is a beautiful novel as it communicates our spiritual concerns though represents our darker natures in insightful ways. The Idiot is a dramatic tragedy, a satire on Russia's aristocracy and a reflection about our dual natures, possessing the capacity for so much good, but also capable of so much evil.

This is a novel written with vividness and extreme passion as only this Russian master can give us. Excellent.

The Idiot is often unfairly compared to Dostoyevsky's other masterpieces and, even though The Idiot usually comes out on the short end of any comparison, it is certainly my favorite. Although the narrative of The Idiot may ramble more than do some of Dostoyevsky's other books, I feel it is ultimately more profound.

At its core, The Idiot is a character/society study although it also encompasses many religious and political aspects as well. The central character, Prince Myshkin, provides the contrast for all the other characters and is definitely a "Christ-like" figure, a man who embodies most perfectly the Christian ideals of selflessness and love.

Prince Myshkin is a man who has suffered from mental illness since childhood. This illness has the curious effect of causing him to respond from his heart rather than from his head. In addition, Myshkin also suffers from a form of epilepsy that causes him to launch into tirades regarding the social ills of the day. As a Christ-like figure, Myshkin is in direct contrast to the other characters in the book who are all worldly and sophisticated, though somewhat cynical, aristocrats. Myshkin's extreme goodness also causes him to become entangled in various political and personal intrigues.

Although completely good, Prince Myshkin in a fully realized character. One of the marvels of this novel is that Dostoyevsky managed to present Myshkin as a serious, rather than a comic, character. His goodness is not something we want to laugh at. There are many comic moments in the book, however, and most of them are provided through various financial and romantic entanglements.

Although Prince Myshkin is the thread that links all the characters and aspects in the novel, he is not the only fully realized character; the others are also extremely well drawn. Dostoyevsky was fond of using real life incidents in his books and his notes tells us this is something he did in creating the characters that populate this book.

Ultimately, The Idiot is a tragic book. Politically, it ridicules the shallow ideals of the Russian aristocracy, and, while Prince Myshkin's ramblings may seem comic, they are actually harsh criticism.

Prince Myshkin was more than "a positively good man." He was a man who could see into the future and know what lay in store. Dostoyevsky's deep insight into the character of man makes The Idiot one of literature's most profound and timeless works.

It is said that if you take a zillion monkeys and set each of them clacking away at a typewriter then eventually one of them will produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Well to produce such a book as "The Idiot," you would need to employ in place of the monkeys, a similar number of brilliant authors - genuises no less - and maybe, just maybe a book as excellent as Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" might be produced.

If some of the duller parts of the Bible are supposed to have been written under the guidance of divine inspiration, what then are we to suppose of a work like this that glows with spiritual power?

The Idiot is Dostoevsky's second novel. The book is a hybrid of biographical sketches and anecdotes of the writer. The protagonist, Prince Myshkin, bears traces of his creator in his suffering of epilepsy. Dostoevsky often deviates from the main plot and voices his perspectives on pain, suffering, capital punishment, and moral goodness.

The notion of suffering incessantly sifts through the novel as if true suffering plays a key role in purifying the protagonist and granting him the overriding power to the [evil] society in which he seeks to gain acceptance. However excruciating and painful it might be, physical suffering and bodily agony would distract the mind from spiritual suffering. That is, the physical aching deprives functioning of mental thinking. The worst suffering, as Prince Myshkin contemplates, are the knowledge and the inevitable truth of one's imminent death, the invincible parting of soul with the body. Being mindful of one's death would only perpetuate suffering. Readers should grip this idea and bear in mind.

Morally upright, magnanimous, forgiving, humble, loving, honest, virtuous and mindful of others needs, Prince Myshkin embodies all human virtue and goodness. He is almost like God, or perfecting to be like God. He is a man capable of an ideal. He is stuck and torn between the love of Aglaia and Natasya upon his return to Russia from medical treatment in Switzerland. Myshkin's self-stigmatizing, humble, and diffident element often agitated Aglaia whose love for him manifests to the full in her passionate recital of a poor knight poem. She shows desire to marry him despite the wonted taunting. She assures that Myshkin is more honorable than anybody is and nobody is worth his little finger let alone his heart and soul.

Out of volition and obligation, Myshkin believes he is responsible to rescue the vile, [evil] Natasya from her deranged mental state. The cause of his love for her was more than just the bewitching, demonical beauty: it is rather eagerness on Myshkin's part to be of service to his country after being abroad. He has long set an ideal and having faith in such ideal empowers him to give up his life blindly to it. Though Natasya is surprised at Myshkin's discerning words that she ought to be ashamed and that she is not what she pretends to be, she tortures herself by not falling in love with him lest to disgrace and ruin his life.

In her importunate letters to Aglaia, Natasya implored and coaxed her to marry Myshkin as she did not wish to besmirch him. But destiny plays a cruel joke on them. Myshkin bears such tender spot for the afflicted, disgraced women in Natasya. However pertinacious not to love him, Natasya acknowledges his irresistible impact on her and regards him as the first and only man she has met in her whole life that she has believed in as a sincere friend. When Aglaia accuses her being a manipulator, Natasya falls down on her knees and thwarts Myshkin from leaving, who then comforts her and agrees to marry her.

Many readers, myself included, would mull at the meaning of the title. It would be impossible to do Myshkin justice by abasing him as an idiot. A simpleton at best? Myshkin is looked upon as an idiot (from Greek meaning private and ignorant) for his not being compromised with the vanity, vices, [evilness], mendacity, and avarice of a vain society. Unyielding as he might be, it is almost like naivete that Myshkin always resolves to be courteous, honest, and trustful with everyone. Such naivete somehow gives way to philosophical outlook and idealism and thus ennobled him. Others harbor the effrontery to inveigle him, to launch a calumny against him in order to usurp his fortune. Maybe his ignorance of the vile and magnanimity for others' wrongdoings create in him an idiot (a private person).

The Idiot, as cumbersome and lengthy as it seems, is rather a simple novel in plot. Dostoevsky often deviates from the main plot to reflect (and to reiterate) his philosophy through the prince, somehow bears an overriding sense of mission in the society, if not the whole world. I have denounce some critics' portraying the story as some bitter love triangle, for Dostoevsky has no room for a melodrama. In an epic that evokes Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Dostoevsky seeks out the most ordinary characters whose ordinary tales (Madame Epanchins' imaginative troubles and whining, Ippolit's nightmares, General Ivolgin's delirious memories of his childhood encounter with Napoleon) lend a special note of verisimilitude in the lives of Russians.

Like Crime and Punishment, The Idiot is dim, melancholy, doleful, and somber though the Epanchins, Lebedyev, and General Ivolgin animated, lightened up with a tinge of comic relief. Myshkin's desire to cure Natasya of her madness only relapsed himself into insanity. The Idiot evokes in readers a sense of tenderness and sympathy for the protagonist whose unyielding righteousness impedes him from resolving his own plight. 4.2 stars.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" is a compelling mixture of extremely well-drawn characterizations as well as an adept representation of the author's persistently over-arching world view concerning the "perennial questions" of human existence. The novel's main subject, Prince Myshkin, is a sublime and unforgettable character. I certainly wouldn't dispute Myshkin's centrality in "The Idiot" but here Dostoevsky has fleshed out many more distinctive personalities ( Aglaya, Rogozhin, Lebedev, Ippolit ) than ( if memory serves correctly ) in his "Crime and Punishment" ( another masterwork ), which focused pretty much on Raskolnikov's decaying interior world ( an extension of his "underground man" from the famous "Notes" of 1864 ).To speak of the plot would be irresponsible ( I do recommend reading the main text *prior* to reading the scholarly introduction by the translator ) but you can be assured that if you have enjoyed the novels of Joseph Conrad, Nikos Kazantzakis or Thomas Mann, you will appreciate "The Idiot". Also, it seems fairly obvious that a person who has already read several of Dostoevsky's other works will be interested in this particular novel. I admit that, not having read a 19th century novel for quite a while ( some ten years ), the portrayal of a "salon culture" elite and the ( at first glance ) melodramatic exchanges between the characters in their frequent soirees appeared, initially, to be somewhat strained. However, it was instructive to meditate on the fact that this was an era ( c.1868 ) without the benefit (?) of our advanced level technological distractions and so, if one was *not* to participate in such gatherings, one would likely be resigned to a life of intellectual solitude. In such a light, the melodrama of the exchanges seemed less unrealistic. And Dostoevsky was, in fact, throughout his early adulthood a frequenter of all sorts of literary gatherings ( this aspect of his life is superbly revealed in the first of Joseph Frank's monumental multi-volume literary biography ). Undoubtedly Dostoevsky drew upon his memories of such social circles when writing "The Idiot". In any case, whether it was by bearing these historical points in mind or by naturally adjusting to the author's emotional landscape, I did eventually adjust and felt the dialogue to transform into a compellingly realistic vision, at turns exhilarating and sorrowful ( inevitably, the latter mood prevails ). My choice of translation was the Alan Myers/Oxford Press version. I noticed that the Penguin translation was about 60-70 pages shorter. I didn't find that either mentioned "abridged" ( or "unabridged" ) but ended up basing my purchase on the Oxford's ( apparently ) longer version. Also, the Myers/Oxford version has a black and white map of St Petersburg and some helpful notes explaining various obscure references. However, having read the novel only once, I'm obviously not in the position to call this version definitive. I imagine the old Constance Garnett translation has some merit ( she's been in print for some 70 years now and that must say something of her abilities ) and the version produced by the widely acclaimed team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volakhonsky ( having previously translated all the other late novels )is undoubtedly well worth exploring.

So many have written excellent, insightful reviews. Let me simply add a few observations. Prince Myshkin, the main character, indeed represents the "Christian" personality prototype, the "child" who is welcomed into the Kingdom of God. He lives and relates on a deeply spiritual level, making him unfit for survival in the highly materialistic world around him.

The prince loves on a different level, too. The only form of love he is aware of, which makes him ridiculous to many, cares for the truest well-being of the subjects of his "affection." His love is non-sexual, though the author goes to great lengths to express the sensuality of the two women with whom his life collides.

(I think his rare, negative impression of one minor character, Vera Lebedeva, stems from the seeds of his sensual nature. Vera is perhaps the purest person he encounters a servant with a servant's heart, and fosters within a budding temporal love to which he is a complete stranger. He casts it off.)

I find the prince and the leading characters highly allegorical. The various characters - each - yearn for what the prince has managed to maintain, his true humanity. Each of them have traded key aspects of their true selves in order to function in a world centered around fame, prosperity and comfort. The reader comes to pity them in some respects more than the main character, though his plight is well expressed.

One idea drawn from the allegory: That materialism is rampant, and that the materialist sacrifices everything truly human to their detriment. The pure Christian soul cannot survive in a world dominated by materialism. "Humanity" cannot survive without sacrificing deep temporal cravings for the primacy of serving, in love, others.

The symbolism behind Holbein's painting? In the setting of the Idiot, steeped in materialism as it is, Christ is dead as a doornail. The world, surrendered to myriad forms of greediness, condemns Christ to permanent death, with no hope of resurrection - no gospel of Christ. The painting's significance, indeed its very placement, represents the hopelessness of the human state as it ruthlessly pursues fulfillment of spiritual emptiness with evanescent sensory pleasure.

It took me three months to read "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky, but more than five years to get around to reading it after it was suggested to me by my friend's mother in Zagreb. She told me that she loved Russian literature and when I asked which novel I should read if I only ever read one, she said, without a doubt, "The Idiot." It was her favorite by far.

My overwhelming impression after finishing it (just minutes ago) is that I feel that I missed a great deal. A Russian friend of mine told me that it is difficult to start Russian literature with "The Idiot" because there is a great deal of contextual understanding required for it. This version, translated by Alan Myers and published by Oxford World's Classics in 1992, was quite readable and included explanatory notes on the text at the end, which helped to illustrate some of the incidents to which Dostoevsky refers, including literary references and a famous and gory murder by a person on which a main character in the novel was modeled.

(I had to pick it up and put it down a lot, which I'm sure detracted from the pace of the plot for me. It would be more enjoyed if one had a great deal of time to focus on it until it was finished, though I did enjoy it a great deal.)

I am told "The Idiot" is very characterisic of a Russian novel, long, with many characters. It also is overcast with existentialism and hopelessness. I will try to summarize the plot of what is really a very psychological novel. (The big moments are emotional, mostly, and one spends a lot of time thinking about what makes various characters, particularly the rival women, do what they do and say what they say.)

Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin is the title character, or the idiot. He has an epilepsy-type disorder, which has caused him to be hospitalized and treated in Switzerland for some years. Returning to St. Petersburg on the train, he is in a car with Parfion Semyonovich Rogozhin and Lukyan Timofeyevich Lebedev, which is where he learns of the beautiful Nastasya Filippovna Barashkova, a kept woman whose beauty is infamous. In order to secure an inheritance, the Prince goes to General Ivan Fedorovich Yepanchin, where he meets Gavrila Ardalionovich Ivolgin, his secretary and the general's daughter, Aglaya Ivanovna Yepanchin, another famous, but chaste and pure (but kind of high maintenance) beauty.

The first part of the book is incredibly suspenseful, taking place within perhaps 24 hours or so (I can't quite remember), but I found the rest of the book a little more meandering, though not irritatingly so. There are exciting incidents and a surprising ending, though it was foreshadowed pretty well throughout; I should have seen it or something like it coming.

The Prince is clearly meant to be a Christ-like figure. My version of the paperback has a detail of Christ's face from Christ in the Tomb by Hans Holbein on the cover. The Prince is always kind and good, he loves without the strictures of the upper-middle-class society that he sees about him, and even when he's made fun of, tricked, attacked and maligned, he continues to love and care for the social group in which he has found himself.

The introductory notes state, "Yet if Myshkin is a Christ he is a flawed one, and his mission is doomed to failure. His Christian meekness and compassion ... have disruptive ... consequences when practised in the 'real' world of nineteenth-century Russia. ...
[I]n Russia the same qualities [innocence and simplicity] breed mistrust, embarassment, and hatred. ... In Russia Myshkin discovers, for the first time in his life, the gulf between ideals and reality and the impossibility of achieving paradise on earth."

Recently, I read a book called "If You Want to Write" by Brenda Euland, published in the 1930s. She praised the Russian writers because she said they imagined their worlds and characters so clearly and completely that they merely had to write down what they saw and describe it. Their texts did not seem made up, or stilted. I would agree with her. From the first sentence of The Idiot, I could clearly see the world in which Prince Myshkin lived.

I also did try to prepare for Dostoevsky himself by reading J.M. Coetzee's fictional work about the return of Dostoevsky to St. Petersburg from Germany when his teen-age stepson died, The Master of Petersburg. I think it was a good preparation for the dark, existential pain of this novel.

I read this book for the first time when I was 15 or 16, and promptly declared it my favorite book. When I read it again in my 30s, it rang even more true. The society in this book is not so different from ours, obsessed with money, beauty, social standing, celebrity, and so forth. People are restless, flawed, seeking peace, while at the same time self-hating, self-destructive, and seeking out danger. What happens to this perfectly good, loving, honest human being, Myshkin, comes to seem inevitable given what we know about human nature, then and now.