# Reading > Forum Book Club >  September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky

## Scheherazade

*In September, we will be reading Dostoevsky's The Idiot.

Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.

Online Text*

----------


## DapperDrake

Ok, well I have my copy but it may take me a little while to get started  :Frown:  i'll finish off my current book in a few days but unfortunately I'm as busy as all hell at the moment with work and study so at best I'll manage one and a half hours a day of reading... Remains to be seen if that's enough for me to finish a book of this size in a month :/

----------


## mickitaz

Well.. having been one of the individuals who voted for _We_, I jumped ahead and started reading _The Idiot_. I can say that I am delightfully pleased so far. I must admit Dostoevsky's style of writing is easy and descriptive. The story line is interesting in and of itself. 

What I particularly am intrigued with is that everyone implicates Muishkan as a simple minded creature. Furthermore, that he is mentally unstable. To be frank, I think that he is the most sane person presented so far. I am sure the extent of other characters bizzar behavior is to enhance a particular point.

----------


## Gladys

Mickitaz, I agree with every syllable. _The Idiot_ is brimming with warmth.

----------


## hellsapoppin

I will not be reading this excellent book with the group but give it my highest recommendation. When I read it years ago what stood out for me was Myshkin's parallels with Jesus:

Both were 'princes' (Jesus = prince of peace), both very passive in the face of much social anxiety, both seemingly in a quest for truth, and both subjected to ridicule. There was also some tension over materialist values which both dismissed as insignificant to themselves. 

Sorry to say I don't recall how it ended but I'm sure it will keep your attention until the very last sentence.

Enjoy!

 :Smile:

----------


## mickitaz

I agree with Prince Muishken being portrayed at "Jesus" in a sense. You see the imagry as far as his being described in light colors, a childlike expression and such. What I also find interesting, is we experience other character's houses... The Epanchin's estate, Rogojins's house, even Hippolyte's room. But not once, (so far at least) do we have a description of the prince's house. 

To further enhance the savior image, Rogojin's house is described as dark and allowing no sunlight to come through. Furthermore, his attitude in general is dark and unforgiving. This is more evident when he speaks directly to the prince himself. 

What is even more interesting, is at the party of the prince's birthday Lebedeff goes off on a tangent, first describing the Apocolypse, then going into a general description of Satan. Specifically, he states that Satan probably doesn't look like the monster with the horns as society has built, but rather like a regular human being.

----------


## Gladys

Interesting that there's no description of the prince's house. Maybe, he's just a stranger and pilgrim in Russia, from far-away Switzerland?

What are we to make of Evgenie Pavlovitch?

----------


## mickitaz

I thought of that at first, regarding his traveling through Russia. But not once is it mentioned that he has a place of residence, or renting a room somewhere. Hmm.. I will have to think more on that.

In refrence to Evgenie Pavlovitch.. I am not really sure to be honest. I get the impression that one should not trust him. Then again, at this point, I am not trusting a lot of the characters. I almost feel as not one of them is true or safe, and in some way they will hurt Muishken to his own detriment. Must.... read.... on.....

Gladys.. have you read this book previously?

----------


## DapperDrake

Oh, Just wondering, what translations are we all reading?

I have the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky - its new apparently :-/

----------


## mickitaz

The version I am reading was published in 1868 and translated by Eva Martin.

----------


## ggeneraux

> Oh, Just wondering, what translations are we all reading?
> 
> I have the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky - its new apparently :-/


I'm also reading this translation. I picked up a copy from the library today and finished the introduction a few minutes ago

----------


## bazarov

Starting tomorrow.

----------


## HerGuardian

As I just finished chapter 9 part 1, I've noticed that Dostoevsky is using Mushkin to deliver his views about execution and other matters. However, the novel is going smoothly and carefully built. I liked it so far.

----------


## DapperDrake

I'm enjoying it very much  :Smile:  just hit chapter 16, I must say its very amusing and a good flowing read - in a word its delightful.
I'm off to Canary Wharf by train for work tomorrow, so I hope shall be able to get a good chunk of reading done, assuming I can get a seat on the train back.

----------


## mickitaz

Well, I have just finished the book. Very good indeed. There were many times I had to force myself to put the book down (since I had to go to sleep for work the next morning). 

One bit of irony I found... they said that Natasia had the book of Madame Bovary. I couldn't help but think of the similarities in character between herself and Madame Bovary. I distained both of them in such a strain...Oh!

----------


## wilbur lim

Oh my mickitaz,you had finished reading the book!!!!!!

----------


## bazarov

> I agree with Prince Muishken being portrayed at "Jesus" in a sense. You see the imagry as far as his being described in light colors, a childlike expression and such. What I also find interesting, is we experience other character's houses... The Epanchin's estate, Rogojins's house, even Hippolyte's room. But not once, (so far at least) do we have a description of the prince's house.


In train, Prince answered to Rogozhin that he doesn't have a house or anything in Peterburg and he's not sure where he will stay.
A total stranger in every aspect.

----------


## mickitaz

> In train, Prince answered to Rogozhin that he doesn't have a house or anything in Peterburg and he's not sure where he will stay.
> A total stranger in every aspect.


Right.. that was at the beginning of the book. I was referring towards the middle, after he finds out he inherited a sizable fortune. Our narrator indicates that Prince went abroad for several months to set his affairs in order. 

I find it interesting that while we get a description of General Involgin's house and summer house, Roginin's house, even Lebedef's establishment; not once is it mentioned that the Prince made some sort of dwelling place his.

Yes, during his travels he stayed with many friends. I find also a similarity that people enjoy his stories. Someone mentioned here during chat, that they felt Dostoevsky used the Prince as a sounding board for all his own political and religious views. To this I agree. However, this ties in to the preacher/Jesus analogy.

----------


## mickitaz

> Oh my mickitaz,you had finished reading the book!!!!!!


Yep.. .finished the book. However, I seemed to have paid a price  :Bawling:  Somehow, from reading so much the one night, I gave myself a muscle spasm in my neck. Went to the doctor and now I am on muscle relaxer's and going for physical therapy.. I am such a geek sometimes. :Biggrin:

----------


## Gladys

> I couldn't help but think of the similarities in character between herself and Madame Bovary. I disdained both of them in such a strain...Oh!


Unlike 'the idiot', you didn't like Nastasya Filippovna?

----------


## mickitaz

> Unlike 'the idiot', you didn't like Nastasya Filippovna?


No, I didn't like Nastasia. She was a shrewd woman who played men till she was tired of them. She used each and every one of them to her advantage. However, she just wasn't quite smart enough though. Since Roginin ended her reign. 

Aglaya was different. She was afraid of how others viewed her actions, so she acted one way, and felt another. I really was quite surprised as to her reaction to loosing the Prince. To be honest, I thought she was just playing a mean joke on him by going along with the proposal. But after you hear of her reaction to him leaving her at Natasia's; it was truly heart breaking.

Natasia was just an empty shell of a woman; spreading her infection to all those around her. Ugh!

----------


## Gladys

> No, I didn't like Nastasia. She was a shrewd woman who played men till she was tired of them.


 Oh, so unkind, Mickitaz. 

Nastasya Filippovna is a tragic shell of woman who has lost all self-respect, in part, through the shameless paedophilia of her guardian, Totski. She's only good enough for the terrible Roghozin! The prince hopes he can save her from herself. But, no. Twice, on the eve of their wedding, the sinner flees from the pure and unadulterated light of the idiot. A 'worthless creature', she finally sacrifices herself! 

Aglaya, tragically, understands none of this.

----------


## Miss Adams

I read it, loved it, and am now tempted to reread it. I actually memorized lines from chapters. When you read Dostoevsky, you feel you could paint the imagery he gives. Vivid, funny, and thought provoking. Don't hurry through it. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Alexei

I would like to join the reading ad well. Still I will need some time to catch up because I started reading today. I hope this isn't going to be a problem?  :Smile:

----------


## bazarov

> I would like to join the reading ad well. Still I will need some time to catch up because I started reading today. I hope this isn't going to be a problem?


Yes, I also just started...

But that was enough to remind me...




> I believe that to execute a man for murder is to punish him immeasurably more dreadfully than is equivalent to his crime. A murder by sentence is far more dreadful than a murder committed by a criminal. The man who is attacked by robbers at night, in a dark wood, or anywhere, undoubtedly hopes and hopes that he may yet escape until the very moment of his death. There are plenty of instances of a man running away, or imploring for mercy--at all events hoping on in some degree--even after his throat was cut. But in the case of an execution, that last hope--having which it is so immeasurably less dreadful to die,--is taken away from the wretch and certainty substituted in its place! There is his sentence, and with it that terrible certainty that he cannot possibly escape death--which, I consider, must be the most dreadful anguish in the world. You may place a soldier before a cannon's mouth in battle, and fire upon him--and he will still hope. But read to that same soldier his death-sentence, and he will either go mad or burst into tears. Who dares to say that any man can suffer this without going mad? No, no! it is an abuse, a shame, it is unnecessary--why should such a thing exist? Doubtless there may be men who have been sentenced, who have suffered this mental anguish for a while and then have been reprieved; perhaps such men may have been able to relate their feelings afterwards. Our Lord Christ spoke of this anguish and dread. No! no! no! No man should be treated so, no man, no man!"


...what a great book this is!

It's amazing how often people care for behavior toward animals, and do things like this to humans :Frown:

----------


## Janine

Wow, two pages already. From what I have read so far on this thread, I am interested in reading it, even though I did not vote for it. It was however, on my reading list for the near future. I have to finish another book and hope to join in before the month is through. I purchased the book a few months back; been curious to read it.

----------


## bazarov

> What is even more interesting, is at the party of the prince's birthday Lebedeff goes off on a tangent, first describing the Apocolypse, then going into a general description of Satan. Specifically, he states that Satan probably doesn't look like the monster with the horns as society has built, but rather like a regular human being.


In Brothers Karamazov, Ivan speaks with Devil and Devil states:''Satan sum, et nihil humanum ame alienum puto''....I am Satan, and nothing human isn't strange to me. :Smile: 

You're too harsh on Nastasya; her behavior is just a reflection of male actions toward her.

----------


## qspeechc

Read the book about a year ago.

Is there anything to be made of Myshkin's long talks about death, that he particularly makes in the earlier parts of the book. Particularly as he is portayed as a Jesus-like person. Maybe it's just me that picked up on this irrelevant point.

I couldn't understand why Myshkin left Aglaya for Nastasya. Perhaps because the saviour is needed most in the sinner's house, and in fact Aglaya has no need for redemption. Or do I sound like a buffoon? I am still pondering over the ending.

----------


## bazarov

That's a true happening from Dostoevsky's life.
No, you're right; Nastasya was more in need. She was really unhappy, Aglaya was more like stupid adolescent. :Biggrin:

----------


## _Shannon_

Does anyone know if Myshkin's views of the death penalty/guillotine were concordant with Dostoyevsky's views??

(Yes--I am just starting :Smile:  )

----------


## mickitaz

Sorry if I offended anyone. I didn't like Natasia. But in earnest, I was having a bad day when I wrote that passage. Wanted to make my point understood, perhaps I went a bit too far.

----------


## _Shannon_

> Sorry if I offended anyone. I didn't like Natasia. But in earnest, I was having a bad day when I wrote that passage. Wanted to make my point understood, perhaps I went a bit too far.


I am only 150 pages in--but so far I don't like her either. 

I am so pleased so far, though. I really liked _Crime and Punishment_ (liked is perhaps not really the _right_ word)--but it was not a book which I thought each day "Boy, I can't wait to get some time to read today!!" And with The Idiot, I really just can't wait to read each day! I wonder why _C&P_ is assigned to students more frequently than _The Idiot_--so far to me, The Idiot seems much more reader-friendly.

----------


## Alexei

> I am only 150 pages in--but so far I don't like her either. 
> 
> I am so pleased so far, though. I really liked _Crime and Punishment_ (liked is perhaps not really the _right_ word)--but it was not a book which I thought each day "Boy, I can't wait to get some time to read today!!" And with The Idiot, I really just can't wait to read each day! I wonder why _C&P_ is assigned to students more frequently than _The Idiot_--so far to me, The Idiot seems much more reader-friendly.



I am making comparison between the two as well. That's because C&P is the only other book by Dostoevsky I've read  :Blush: The have very different rhythm for me. I find _"The Idiot"_ easier to read as well. I suppose it is due to the fact that it is more concerned on the dialogue and character's interactions than on a dissection of the thoughts. I am captured by the simple flow of the prose, it feels like a dance - simple in its nature, but something you can fully enjoy.

As for Nastasya, I think I'll take the opposite side. I haven't even reached the middle of the book, I find her interesting and I somehow understand her. And frankly, up to now Aglaya seems to me too ordinary in comparison.

Qspeechc, I agree with your sinner theory, but since I haven't finished the book yet I am not sure if I am supposed to say this  :FRlol:

----------


## _Shannon_

> . I find _"The Idiot"_ easier to read as well. I suppose it is due to the fact that it is more concerned on the dialogue and character's interactions than on a dissection of the thoughts. I am captured by the simple flow of the prose, it feels like a dance - simple in its nature, but something you can fully enjoy.


I was thinking some of it had to do with not everybody's name beginning with the letter "R" ... :Biggrin:

----------


## fleaaaaaa

Been reading a while but I finished this book last night. Very good book. I'm going to read three men in a boat next by Jerome K Jerome.

----------


## Alexei

> I was thinking some of it had to do with not everybody's name beginning with the letter "R" ...


Haha, yeah, probably that's the main reason  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

I better get reading this book if I plan to participate or comment at all. Sorry I have not even started it yet; and I have been dying to read it for sometime. My delay really could not be helped; I have not been feeling well. I may be able to catch up but if not I will read the book and then review all of this fine discussion.

----------


## Gladys

'The Idiot' is an excellent pick-me-up, Janine.

----------


## Janine

Is it really, *Gladys*? I will have to read it while I finish up this other book I have been reading for months. That one is so drawn out and I wish to complete it. I hate abandoning any books. Maybe I could alternate evenings reading both and somehow I have to fit in the new Shakespeare play for that discussion. I hope that play is not a long one. I will have to alternate between the three, I suppose. My gosh the month flies right by, doesnt' it?

----------


## islandclimber

> Been reading a while but I finished this book last night. Very good book. I'm going to read three men in a boat next by Jerome K Jerome.


I loved "Three Men In a Boat"... and "Idle thoughts of an Idle Fellow"... Jerome K. Jerome is a great writer.. very funny...

Back to the book at hand.. I can never decide upon of favourite of Dostoevsky's major works... each has their own unique beauty... I love them all haha.. 

"The Idiot" always fascinated me, with the Christ like figure of the Prince so much different from any other character in Dostoevsky really... I guess some might compare him to Alyosha from TBK or Sonia from C&P, but I find him to be so different.. his innocence and naivete with regards to social norms and conventions makes this story so interesting...

Nastasya, I sympathize with her... and find her to be the most powerful and interesting female character in the story... she has had her own sort of neervous breakdown that is continually occuring throughout the story in her flight back and forth.. never happy without the Prince, but always afraid she is not good enough for him while they are together... Myshkin maybe is delusional in trying to save her, but like Christ, just on a smaller scale he sacrifices his own well-being in the attempt... 

I think too much time alone, as Myshkin must have had throughout his life, makes for thoughts of death... explaining his preoccupation with it throughout the beginning of the book... when you have no one around so often, death would likely become thought that was often on your mind... (speaking from experience here =p lol)

Some very good points by Bazarov  :Smile: ... i like the use of the quote from TBK... it is fitting... :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Gladys

> Myshkin maybe is delusional in trying to save her, but like Christ, just on a smaller scale he sacrifices his own well-being in the attempt...


 To save her...or to save Parfen Roghozin?

----------


## islandclimber

I would say both...

----------


## Janine

Now you, *Gladys* and *Islandclimber,* have me very interested in this book. I think I will start it tonight.

----------


## motherhubbard

Janine, it was a wonderful story. I hope you do read it. I think you'll love it.

----------


## Janine

motherhubbard, Thanks for recommending it. I think that D.H.Lawrence wrote some critiques and he actually did like this book of D's the best. It must be hopeful. I know he had some issues with some of D's other novels or ideas. I have been curious to read "The Idiot", after I read L's review, since I am a big Lawrence fan. Funny how one book will lead you to another.

----------


## Janine

I did read the first chapter in the book and found it quite interesting. I liked the style of writing very much and the book grabbed my attention immediately. I know it has to be a great read; one can always tell from the first chapter. It is a long book and I am a slow reader so I can't promise too much in the way of commentary. I haven't been well lately so I will see what I can do after I complete the novel. At least I probably will be able to write up a few thoughts on the book.

----------


## lugdunum

How are you getting on Janine? 
I'll be starting part 2 tonight, and have been looking forward to it all day.

I have to say that I am very positively surprised with this book (I voted for _We_). I haven't read any other Dostoievski's books but went to a play based on C&P and almost died of boredom  :Yawnb:  (must have been the play though and not the text itself). 

I find _the Idiot_ easy to read, a nice storyline and lot's of interesting characters (regardless of whether I like them or not). 

I haven't read all of your comments (-I'm afraid of coming across a spoiler or getting preconceived ideas) but for now I tend to agree with *Mickitaz* on many points, particularly : 




> What I particularly am intrigued with is that everyone implicates Muishkan as a simple minded creature. Furthermore, that he is mentally unstable. To be frank, I think that he is the most sane person presented so far. I am sure the extent of other characters bizzar behavior is to enhance a particular point.


I wouldn't have said it better myself  :Wink:  Why do you think that is? because he seems so naive or because he speaks the truth and expresses his feelings out loud instead of getting into lies, treacheries and calculating every single move like he's playing a game of chess (like most of all the other characters do)? 

About Nastasia, I still can't decide whether to despise her or take pity on her... 

Just an additional question - I'm reading the book in French and I was wondering if in the English version there are lots of words or sentences in French because in the footnotes it says that they were in French in the original version... Just curious. 

PS: *Mickitaz*, how's your neck by the way ?  :Tongue:

----------


## Nightshade

I finally finally got hold of a copy of the idiot today, I might read it on friday... :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

> How are you getting on Janine?


Thanks for asking, *lugdunum*, lots of ups and downs lately; will be ok if I get my meds straightened out; long complicated story.




> I'll be starting part 2 tonight, and have been looking forward to it all day.


I may read some tonight. I liked it so far.




> I have to say that I am very positively surprised with this book (I voted for _We_). I haven't read any other Dostoievski's books but went to a play based on C&P and almost died of boredom  (must have been the play though and not the text itself).


Same here, and actually I voted on "Notes From the Underground" - I admit since I saw that was the shortest and I happen to have the book; I did start that book but it did not catch my interest as this one does. I was also surprised at how I took to the writing in "The Idiot" - besides the title sort of makes me curious. It flows quite nicely. I was not sure what you meant by C&P, but now I see what you are talking about and that the play was merely based on the book. I just bought a book of some Russian plays by different authors; hope that is good. Think there is one in there by D. of it may have been Chekhov. 





> I find _the Idiot_ easy to read, a nice storyline and lot's of interesting characters (regardless of whether I like them or not).


So did I find it easy to read and I am reading in English.





> I haven't read all of your comments (-I'm afraid of coming across a spoiler or getting preconceived ideas) but for now I tend to agree with *Mickitaz* on many points, particularly :


Oh, referring to me or someone else?




> I wouldn't have said it better myself  Why do you think that is? because he seems so naive or because he speaks the truth and expresses his feelings out loud instead of getting into lies, treacheries and calculating every single move like he's playing a game of chess (like most of all the other characters do)?


That was good, the way *Mickitaz* put that. I have a feeling I will agree with this once I read more of the book.





> About Nastasia, I still can't decide whether to despise her or take pity on her... 
> 
> Just an additional question - I'm reading the book in French and I was wondering if in the English version there are lots of words or sentences in French because in the footnotes it says that they were in French in the original version... Just curious.


PS: *Mickitaz*, how's your neck by the way ?  :Tongue: [/QUOTE]

I know you are probably speaking to 


> Michitaz,


 but I am reading it in English; so far I haven't gotten far enough to run into phrases in French, but I will let you know.

----------


## bazarov

> I wouldn't have said it better myself  Why do you think that is? because he seems so naive or because he speaks the truth and expresses his feelings out loud instead of getting into lies, treacheries and calculating every single move like he's playing a game of chess (like most of all the other characters do)?


He doesn't realize how the society and human relationships function. He was too long with kids, and he doesn't realize that people are rude, bad and selfish. People find him stupid, then they realize his is just too good and his stupidness is a result of strange belief that every human is actually good; and the truth is that almost every human is actually bad, and then they start to like him. But, they still treat him as an Idiot. Poor Knight, Aglaya, Eugene Pavlich, etc - more then few examples.




> About Nastasia, I still can't decide whether to despise her or take pity on her...


Why people generally despise her? I don't get it.




> Just an additional question - I'm reading the book in French and I was wondering if in the English version there are lots of words or sentences in French because in the footnotes it says that they were in French in the original version... Just curious.


Many his novels are filled with French, and especially Idiot. I asked the same once my Russian teacher; Russians just loved French. In Dead souls Gogol wrote: Every Russian girl in schools learns three things: house keeping, piano and French. Of course, it's not always in that order; sometimes it's piano, French and house keeping. :Biggrin:

----------


## lugdunum

> He doesn't realize how the society and human relationships function. He was too long with kids, and he doesn't realize that people are rude, bad and selfish. People find him stupid, then they realize his is just too good and his stupidness is a result of strange belief that every human is actually good; and the truth is that almost every human is actually bad, and then they start to like him. But, they still treat him as an Idiot. Poor Knight, Aglaya, Eugene Pavlich, etc - more then few examples.


Agreed, he does sometimes act like a child. And as you say probably because he spent too much time with them when he was already an adult. But he also has some very adult reasoning and (at least so far) it seems to me that he is getting more and more adult reactions (in the good way) as the book goes on I might be proved wrong though. 
And he is good at psychologically analyzing people (-at least that's what I gathered do far).
And it's true that people seem to like him and some even come to him for advice, thing you probably wouldn't do if you thought someone was a _real_ idiot and yet they keep saying that he is... 




> Why people generally despise her? I don't get it.


I don't know. On one hand I think I despise her because everything she does seems so weird, so childish, so annoying. I mean why on earth would she want to marry Rogojine (not sure of the spelling) and then keep running back and forth from this wedding. Why can she not calm down, think and decide on what to do instead of running around like that? And also, like someone said previously, she's playing around with men in a annoying way. But then again, she's being completely manipulated by them and considered like an object or a hunting prize so that could justify it...  :Wink: 

Then on the other hand I can't help feeling sorry for her because she does look a bit mentally ill, and who wouldn't with the past that she's had... So I'm not really sure what to think about her. I'll try to make up my mind after finishing the book  :Biggrin: 




> Every Russian girl in schools learns three things: house keeping, piano and French. Of course, it's not always in that order; sometimes it's piano, French and house keeping.


 :FRlol:

----------


## islandclimber

Myshkin is considered an "idiot", at least for much of the book, because he is entirely unaware of the societal norms and conventions of the time... mostly as bazarov points out, due to his spending his entire adulthood up this point with children... he may be intelligent and have an uncanny ability to analyze people but he is quite innocent, quite naive in a sense for lack of a better term, and quite out of place in society as is illustrated by many incidents throughout the novel.. 

People do realize he is quite intelligent though, at times.. I forget who said it, but someone in the novel, surprised by Myshkin's intelligence, says something about how maybe he is not the idiot after all... Dostoevsky wants us to know he is considered an idiot because of his apparent naivete and innocence regarding society... the Christ figure of the story is considered a fool and laughed at countless times... and maybe he is saying something about modern belief.. as Dostoevsky did believe the only way Russia could be saved was through the Russian Orthodox Church...

I still don't understand how anyone could really dislike Nastasia.. she is obviously somewhat mentally unstable... maybe the prince pushed her over the edge with his original marriage proposal when she decided she was not good enough for him... she seemed to have a nervous breakdown almost... and lose it... but no matter.. she is miserable and one can only feel pity for her, and her condition imo... 

cheers :Smile:

----------


## Gladys

> Dostoevsky wants us to know he is considered an idiot because of his apparent naivete and innocence regarding society


 The prince valued little 'societal norms and conventions of the time'. He valued integrity and compassion, spectacularly illustrated by, 'His tears flowed on to Roghozin's cheek'.




> ...someone in the novel, surprised by Myshkin's intelligence, says something about how maybe he is not the idiot after all


 '...after leaving the prince, the doctor [in Pavlofsk] said to Lebedev: "If all such people were put under restraint, there would be no one left for keepers."'

----------


## islandclimber

> The prince valued little 'societal norms and conventions of the time'. He valued integrity and compassion, spectacularly illustrated by, 'His tears flowed on to Roghozin's cheek'.
> 
> '...after leaving the prince, the doctor [in Pavlofsk] said to Lebedev: "If all such people were put under restraint, there would be no one left for keepers."'


I couldn't agree with you more about the prince placing little value and emphasis on those things.. I wasn't trying to say he is an idiot, just that, that is why others consider him to be an idiot... I am not sure though whether him placing little value on those things is a conscious choice that he is aware of making or not, though i think not.. he seems to just be himself for better or worse, which is another reason he is considered an idiot and out of place.. speaking his thoughts and emotions much to freely.. how awful!!!  :Tongue: 

i love the quote you chose to illustrate that... very moving...

and the second quote although it isn't the one i was thinking of  :Frown: .. it is another great example of someone realizing that maybe it isn't Myshkin who has something wrong with him, it is the rest of us..  :Smile: .. thank you Gladys :Smile:

----------


## Janine

I agree with many of the things you are all pointing out about the prince. I really find him fascinating and he is very childlike and innocent; he seems sensitive and honest; unpretentious.

I am just past the second chapter or maybe the third and I feel a little lost. Am I daft of is it a bit confusing understanding what the general and Ganya are saying about the woman in the portrait? I could not quite get the drift there. Maybe I am not meant to know the full portent, until I get to further chapters? It was late, when I was reading it, and I did not feel well yesterday. Can someone fill me in or should I just re-read that chapter?

----------


## Gladys

> the woman in the portrait


The prince says it all. 

"It's a wonderful face," said the prince, "and I feel sure that her destiny is not by any means an ordinary, uneventful one. Her face is smiling enough, but she must have suffered terribly-- hasn't she? Her eyes show it--those two bones there, the little points under her eyes, just where the cheek begins. It's a proud face too, terribly proud! And I--It's a proud face too, terribly proud! And I--I can't say whether she is good and kind, or not. Oh, if she be but good! That would make all well!"

"And would you marry a woman like that, now?" continued Gania, never taking his excited eyes off the prince's face.

"I cannot marry at all," said the latter. "I am an invalid."

"Would Rogojin marry her, do you think?"

"Why not? Certainly he would, I should think. He would marry her tomorrow!--marry her tomorrow and murder her in a week!"

----------


## lugdunum

What do you all think of Elizabetha Prokofievna (Mrs. Epanchin)?

----------


## Alexei

> What do you all think of Elizabetha Prokofievna (Mrs. Epanchin)?


Although I sometimes find her a bit silly, generally I have some sympathy for her. She is after all good-natured and I like her eccentricity. Actually, her behaviour rather amuses me  :FRlol: 

What actually puzzles me is that Aglaya is supposed to be like her, after all Elizabetha Prokofievna says so herself (there are lots of passages where amidst her thoughts concerning Aglaya's nature and future, Mrs. Epanchin says that Aglaya is exactly like her when she was young.) My problem is that I can't really see some convincing evidence of this resemblance between mother and daughter. May be I don't read carefully enough, but I don't see it. I mean I can't see how to compare the rather rational Aglaya with Elizabetha's nervous behaviour and moodiness.

----------


## lugdunum

> Although I sometimes find her a bit silly, generally I have some sympathy for her. She is after all good-natured and I like her eccentricity. Actually, her behaviour rather amuses me


I agree with you. She usually makes me smile (even laugh), especially when she gets so carried away and excited about something. :Biggrin: 




> What actually puzzles me is that Aglaya is supposed to be like her, after all Elizabetha Prokofievna says so herself (there are lots of passages where amidst her thoughts concerning Aglaya's nature and future, Mrs. Epanchin says that Aglaya is exactly like her when she was young.) My problem is that I can't really see some convincing evidence of this resemblance between mother and daughter. May be I don't read carefully enough, but I don't see it. I mean I can't see how to compare the rather rational Aglaya with Elizabetha's nervous behaviour and moodiness.


True. I've been wondering about this as well. 
But if Aglaya is so like her mother, how come she stilll have loads of guys interested in marrying her???? Wouldn't it be a living nightmare being married to Ms. Epanchin hahaha :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

> The prince says it all. 
> 
> "It's a wonderful face," said the prince, "and I feel sure that her destiny is not by any means an ordinary, uneventful one. Her face is smiling enough, but she must have suffered terribly-- hasn't she? Her eyes show it--those two bones there, the little points under her eyes, just where the cheek begins. It's a proud face too, terribly proud! And I--It's a proud face too, terribly proud! And I--I can't say whether she is good and kind, or not. Oh, if she be but good! That would make all well!"
> 
> "And would you marry a woman like that, now?" continued Gania, never taking his excited eyes off the prince's face.
> 
> "I cannot marry at all," said the latter. "I am an invalid."
> 
> "Would Rogojin marry her, do you think?"
> ...


*Gladys*, thanks for answering my question. Yes, I know what you mean about the prince's perception gazing on the photo. I just did not quite connect what the other two men were conversing about but now that I have pushed on in the book, it has all become much clearer to me.

I am enjoying this novel very much so far. I find the story somewhat amusing so far; and the prince very intelligent and nice; he is also amusing in his own unique way; but my feeling is that he is eons ahead in his thoughts than all of the rest of the characters, so far.

----------


## Gladys

> What actually puzzles me is that Aglaya is supposed to be like her, after all Elizabetha Prokofievna says so herself ...I mean I can't see how to compare the rather rational Aglaya with Elizabetha's nervous behaviour and moodiness.


 The final chapter adds to our understanding of Lizabetha Prokofievna. The testimonies of virginal Vera Lebedev, forthright Lizabetha Prokofievna and skeptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch concerning the committed prince, suggest an unlikely resurrection: with the two Marys and Salome visiting an empty Swiss tomb. 
Lizabetha Prokofievna, when she saw poor Muishkin, in his enfeebled and humiliated condition, had wept bitterly. Apparently all was forgiven him. Lizabetha Prokofievna seethes with the same sincerity and subjective passion as her naive daughter, Aglaya:

She [Aglaya] was so fascinated that, even before marrying him, she joined a committee that had been organized abroad to work for the restoration of Poland; and further, she visited the confessional of a celebrated Jesuit priest, who made an absolute fanatic of her.
An unlikely resurrection? 

After each visit to Schneider's establishment, Evgenie Pavlovitch writes another letter...In these letters is to be detected, and in each one more than the last, *a growing feeling of friendship and sympathy*.

----------


## jikan myshkin

when i read this book it blew me away. everything that can be seen in todays society laid bare in the book

----------


## Janine

> when i read this book it blew me away. everything that can be seen in todays society laid bare in the book


I have a like sentiment. I am not even half-way through the book and I am blown away by it. I was reading last night and just could not seem to put this novel down. I started it kind of late for the discussion but I am so happy to say I am making wonderul progress and know I can't wait to get back to reading it. It is a real page turner and the characters totally have me captivated. I love this book and think that feeling will continue until the end - the very last page.

----------


## Alexei

Gladys, I've read your post, but I am afraid I still can't really understand. The problem is I haven't finished the book yet, so I'll need some time till I get to the passages you've quoted. I think I'll understand better when I read them  :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

*Hi Everybody!*

I am making good progress with my reading...I read slowly and I don't wish to do otherwise with this book, given the quality of the writing and the intricacy of the characters and plot. I just passed the part when the group of men came into the gathering and Kolya read the long letter of their demands upon the prince and then he answered them; I believe now I am to the part where Ganya intercedes on his behalf. Wow, that was a very interesting scene but so far my favorites were the party with Natashia throwing the bundle of money into the fire and all of her seemingly erractic behavior and also the scene prior to that when Rogeozhin barged into the house of Ganya's family. I also found fascinating the scene in which the prince went to visit Rogeozhin and especially the part about them switching the crosses (I have a really bad feeling about that) and the part about the painting over the doorway. Wow, that scene was amazing, even the part where R marches the prince through the house to where his mother is and she holds her hand up to him and blesses him.

I tried not to read too far ahead here in the posts, but then I did read some I probably should not have and hope I did not spoil the ending for myself. Just to note to those who have posted. If you do tell about the ending or something grealy significant near the end could you please put SPOILER before that part, so I and others don't read it, until they finish the novel?

I have a few problems keeping the various names straight, but that is usual with me and Russian novels. I really need to write them all down and keep a card by me, for reference, as to the various characters and their alternate names. I am a bit confused at this point about one character - Lebedyev. When the prince went back and encountered him teaching his own children and he seemed to be trying to swindle the prince for money, because now he was a widower and 'his poor children were suffering and hungry', I could not clearly recall when this character, Lebedyev. I did recall when he was first introduced into the story. Can someone fill me in a little better on this character and when he first appeared? I don't want to lose time searching back into the text, since I want to progress with my reading, so I can comment more in this discussion group.

Edit: I failed to mention that two parts in the story have also greatly fascinated me and I believe they directly relate. One was the part when the prince was talking about the execution, and the 'second' before the guillotine blade fell upon the victim. I thought that whole passage extremely deep and interesting and I have not been able to stop thinking about it since. I realised there is much meaning in that passage and felt it also fortold some future event or events.

The other was when the prince would speak of that 'second', when all clarity seemed to come to him and his sense of the world was heightened...the 'second' before he would lapse into an epileptic fit. Also, I was wondering if this is an accurate description of what people do experience who have these seizures? How did the author come up with his description? Did he have first hand knowledge of such things or was it entirely fictional?

I believe these concepts of the 'second' both relate to each other - both anticipate a kind of death - one actual death and one could result in death or oblivion of some sort, perhaps worse than death. They certainly are interesting to consider in relation to each other. They both also bring up the whole concept of 'time'...one that continually fascintes me...how we perceive time at different moments of our lives.

----------


## lugdunum

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one taking more than a month to read this (great) book. I am also highly enjoying it and hope that this thread will remain active in the coming days/weeks. 

Thanks Janine for warning about possible spoilers... 

Also, I agree with you Janine about the names and the difficulty not to get mixed up!! but yet again, as you mentioned it is something rather common with Russian books!! I mean, first of all the names are usually quite hard to remember, but in addition to that they keep giving each other nicknames and this is REALLY confusing. 

Well, the only thing I can tell you is that I got used to it after a while ad I'm sure you will too... So hang in there  :Wink:

----------


## Gladys

> Lebedyev...Can someone fill me in a little better on this character and when he first appeared?


 The fine detail in your last post, Janine, refreshes memories long forgotten. Moreover, I had not appreciated that Lebedeff was the clerk on the train to Petersburg, talking with Rogojin and the prince in Chapter 1. 

"Oh, but I do know, as it happens," said the clerk in an aggravating manner. "Lebedeff knows all about her. *You are pleased to reproach me, your excellency, but what if I prove that I am right after all?* Nastasia Phillpovna's family name is Barashkoff--I know, you see-and she is a very well known lady, indeed, and comes of a good family, too. She is connected with one Totski, Afanasy Ivanovitch, a man of considerable property, a director of companies, and so on, and a great friend of General Epanchin, who is interested in the same matters as he is."

"My eyes!" said Rogojin, really surprised at last. "The devil take the fellow, how does he know that?"

"*Why, he knows everything--Lebedeff knows everything*! I was a month or two with Lihachof after his father died, your excellency, and while he was knocking about--he's in the debtor's prison now--I was with him, and *he couldn't do a thing without Lebedeff*; and I got to know Nastasia Philipovna and several people at that time."

"Nastasia Philipovna? Why, you don't mean to say that she and Lihachof--" cried Rogojin, turning quite pale.

"No, no, no, no, no! Nothing of the sort, I assure you!" said Lebedeff, hastily. "Oh dear no, not for the world! Totski's the only man with any chance there. Oh, no! He takes her to his box at the opera at the French theatre of an evening, and the officers and people all look at her and say, 'By Jove, there's the famous Nastasia Philipovna!' but no one ever gets any further than that, *for there is nothing more to say*."

----------


## Janine

Thanks *Gladys* and *lugdunum*, I think we will be here a while further discussing this complex book; in my opinion it needs a few months for a really good discussion and analysis. I am on page 293 (in my translation - Constance Garnett), and I am thinking that maybe, I need a set of study notes (Cliff notes, E-notes, etc) to understand fully what is now going on. I do find this text a bit confusing at times. How 'bout you, two? Do you 'get' or understand every part of the plot and intrigues? 

I keep thinking this book definitely needs a second reading, but it is weighty reading, and I don't know if I will find the time, anytime soon, to re-read it. Thanks, *Gladys,* for pointing out when we first meet up with Lebedeff (his name is altered in my translation -Lebedyev). I kept thinking I should go back and read that train journey part to clear up my veiws on Rogozhin. 

I do love this book so far, but I can't say it is always an easy book to read and understand, or am I just a little daft? This is the first book of D's I have read. I do however think that most times it flows nicely and is not hard to read - just hard to comprehend all that is going on and much goes on with multiple characters. I think that Dostoyevsky implies or suggests certain things and gives us only hints, and then later clears it up with more explanation, am I right? I refer to the confusing scene on the veranda and the one that followed when the carriage drove by? As I was reading I was following the intrigue in the room fine and then suddenly I got lost and could not make complete or clear sense out of just what was going on. Was part of that story fabricated, the one that Ganya told? This is where they lost me. I hope someone knows and fills me in on it. I got the gist of the scene, but still that whole scene seems sort of 'surreal' to me now.

Well, I know that someday I must come back to this book again and re-read it when I have the time. I always think second readings reveal more, don't you?

----------


## lugdunum

I'm with you on every point *Janine* and thanks *Gladys* for providing such complete and precise answers. O you have a really good knowledge of the novel to know exactly where to fiind the perfect quote each time? 

I have the same feeling about the book. On one hand I find really easy to read and a real page turner. But on the other hand, I feel that by reading it to quickly and perhaps too superficially I am missing many important ideas and the real psychological depth of each character. As I read along, I get the feeling that due to the confusion caused by the complicated names and nicknames, I am not grasping all the details... 

It would definitely be very interesting to re-read this book at least once and with Cliff notes. 

I really like the passages you mentioned Janine about the execution. And like you I've been thinking a lot about it. 

*Alexei*, how are you getting along? Have you finished the book yet?

----------


## Janine

*lugdunum,* thanks for taking the time to read my entry. I did write a bit and know that can be tiring and especially when we divide our time here between various threads. 
Yes, those parts having to do with that minute or second really interesting me the most and also the way in which Myshkin does not think as the others do but with great depth and meaning.

I just was looking online for some type of study notes and only so far came up with this article and thought it was quite interesting. I served to answer some of my own questions as to how the author had first hand knowledge about epilepsy and other conditions perhaps involving the mind. I think you all will find it somewhat insightful. 

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/.../pmIdiot11.asp

I will keep looking online for more notes. Spark Notes one has to pay for so looking for any free commentary I can find.

***

*Edit:* Yeah! I just found an online Sparks notes that is free. This will shed a lot of light on the novel and also the various characters and plot themes. It should help us all.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/

Here is a complete character list - I intend to copy this out on my computer. It should help a lot with the names.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/characters.html

----------


## Gladys

> I kept thinking I should go back and read that train journey part to clear up my views on Rogozhin.


 After Rogozhin buys earrings with the seven thousand roubles his father tasked him to fetch, he stands by shyly as a friend gives Nastasia Philipovna the earrings on his behalf. On the train, Parfen Rogozhin recounts: "Well, what do you think? The old fellow [father] went straight off to Nastasia Philipovna, touched the floor with his forehead, and began blubbering and beseeching her on his knees to give him back the diamonds. So after awhile she brought the box and flew out at him. 'There,' she says, 'take your earrings, you wretched old miser; although they are ten times dearer than their value to me now that I know what it must have cost Parfen to get them! Give Parfen my compliments,' she says, 'and thank him very much!' *Well, I meanwhile had borrowed twenty-five roubles from a friend*, and off I went to Pskoff to my aunt's. The old woman there lectured me so that I left the house and *went on a drinking tour* round the public-houses of the place. I was in a high fever when I got to Pskoff, and by nightfall I was *lying delirious in the streets somewhere or other*!"



> I think that Dostoyevsky implies or suggests certain things and gives us only hints, and then later clears it up with more explanation, am I right?


 Like an oil painter, he adds paint to canvass giving rise to fragments which, ultimately, coalesce. A week ago I finished 'The Insulted and Injured', and continue to muse in the firm hope of coalescence. After reading 'The Idiot', I pondered for weeks. All Dostoyevsky's like that...and I love it. 




> I refer to the confusing scene on the veranda and the one that followed when the carriage drove by?


 I am uncertain which scene these are. Evgenie Pavlovitch's role in the story intrigues me: 'Evgenie Pavlovitch stood on the steps like one struck by lightning' when Nastasia spoke to him from the carriage 'drawn by a pair of beautiful white horses'. Prince S. exclaims, "A man of property like Evgenie to give IOU's to a money-lender, and to be worried about them! It is ridiculous. Besides, he cannot possibly be on such intimate terms with Nastasia Philipovna as she gave us to understand; that's the principal part of the mystery!".

----------


## Alexei

> *Hi Everybody!*
> 
> The other was when the prince would speak of that 'second', when all clarity seemed to come to him and his sense of the world was heightened...the 'second' before he would lapse into an epileptic fit. Also, I was wondering if this is an accurate description of what people do experience who have these seizures? How did the author come up with his description? Did he have first hand knowledge of such things or was it entirely fictional?
> 
> I believe these concepts of the 'second' both relate to each other - both anticipate a kind of deah - one actual death and one could result in death or oblivion of some sort, perhaps worse than death. They certainly are interesting to consider in relation to each other. They both also bring up the whole concept of 'time'...one that continually fascintes me...how we perceive time at different moments of our lives.


Hi, *Jainine*  :Wave:  You've done an amazing amount of work. I've been interested in those issues as well. I am afraid I have more thoughts on the second one though. 

I think the execution issue has its natural place in the novel especially after we've all agreed on Myshkin's figure as some kind of Christ figure. I think these thoughts of the Prince are somehow related to what is going to happen with him latter on. I am not sure though, it's just some kind of intuition  :FRlol: 

I think these descriptions of the epilepsy are very important as some additional idealization of the Prince, I believe that by his illness and his visions he is separated from the other characters and he is placed on some different, higher level. It seems to me that this is what makes him the potential Christ figure. There is something more though, in the ancient Rome epilepsy was called _"Morbus Comitialis"_ (This means *"Sacred Disease"* and I am pretty sure that variations of this term are used for it in most of the ancient languages) and was considered as something very special, mark of distinction. It was considered both a gift and a curse, because it was associated with different types of religious experiences (from gift for prophecy and sign of a potential shaman to a demonic possession). In addition to this there were a lot of very important figures, who suffered from it: Caesar, Caligula etc. Even Alexander the Great suffered from a similar condition. That's why this unearthly experiences Myshkin has during his seizures seems kind of normal for the malady. In addition to this, I think Dostoevsky himself suffered from epilepsy, so I suppose the descriptions should be pretty authentic. 




> *Alexei*, how are you getting along? Have you finished the book yet?


Hey, *Lugdunum*  :Wave: 

I am afraid I am behind on this one as well. Starting another book got me a bit distracted, but I've managed to finish the third part of the book and I am getting closer to the end  :Wink:  I think I'll be able to finish it till the end of the week, at least I hope so  :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

> Hi, *Jainine*  You've done an amazing amount of work. I've been interested in those issues as well. I am afraid I have more thoughts on the second one though.


Oh, glad it was helpful to you; thanks. I thought I had better start posting some comments on the actual story up to the parts I had read or I would forget them. Beware though, last night I printed out the character list and I was annoyed because one of the descriptions gave away a major aspect of the plot. I wish I had not known it and this way the book would be more thrilling. So there are so spoilers in those Spark Notes - BEWARE!




> I think the execution issue has its natural place in the novel especially after we've all agreed on Myshkin's figure as some kind of Christ figure. I think these thoughts of the Prince are somehow related to what is going to happen with him latter on. I am not sure though, it's just some kind of intuition


Alexei, that is excellent. I like the way you expressed this idea. I would certainly agree. I also get a felling (intuition) or pick up on clues that lead me to a forbodding feeling, as to what will happen at the end. 




> I think these descriptions of the epilepsy are very important as some additional idealization of the Prince, I believe that by his illness and his visions he is separated from the other characters and he is placed on some different, higher level. It seems to me that this is what makes him the potential Christ figure. There is something more though, in the ancient Rome epilepsy was called _"Morbus Comitialis"_ (This means *"Sacred Disease"* and I am pretty sure that variations of this term are used for it in most of the ancient languages) and was considered as something very special, mark of distinction. It was considered both a gift and a curse, because it was associated with different types of religious experiences (from gift for prophecy and sign of a potential shaman to a demonic possession). In addition to this there were a lot of very important figures, who suffered from it: Caesar, Caligula etc. Even Alexander the Great suffered from a similar condition. That's why this unearthly experiences Myshkin has during his seizures seems kind of normal for the malady. In addition to this, I think Dostoevsky himself suffered from epilepsy, so I suppose the descriptions should be pretty authentic.


Thanks for adding these ideas to mine. This expands the whole idea on the epilespsy and it is very interesting. Did you read this link (?): 

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/.../pmIdiot11.asp 

Edit: forget the link - the article is not there anymore but luckily I did copy it to my hard-drive. Here it is:

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/...1.aspLiterary/ Historical Information 




> Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote Idiot at a time when he was disturbed both in body and mind. He had had an attack of epilepsy and his mind was restless. The revolutionary and rebellious spirit that he had possessed in youth gave way to philosophical outlook and idealism. Suffering had ennobled him. His struggle and experience as a prisoner haunted by death mellowed his fiery temperament and urged him to create an ideal character who embodied goodness. Thus, during his stay abroad and after his marriage to Anna Gregorievna, he wrote Idiot. "He began notes for the novel on 14 September 1867 in Geneva, where he stayed until the end of May 1868; continued them in Vevey from June until the beginning of September 1868; in Milan until the middle of November; and he finished the novel in Florence, where he stayed through January 1869." 
> Idiot presents a few of Dostoevsky’s biographical sketches and anecdotes. Prince Myshkin has traces of Dostoevsky in him. He is a patient of epilepsy like his creator and also an idealist like him. He voices the author’s views on suffering, capital punishment and creativity. Dostoevsky deviated from the main plot of the story to reflect his ideas through the Prince and other characters in the novel. 
> Why Dostoevsky called his protagonist an idiot is not clear? Could it be because Myshkin had suffered from a mental illness or that he was a simpleton? The word ‘Idiot’ is derived from the Greek ‘idiotes’ which means a "private person, a common man, an ignorant uninformed person." It is possible that Dostoevsky named Myshkin an ‘idiot’ because he was essentially a private person, ignorant of the ways of the world and the representative of the common man.


Since this person's article talks about how Dostoyevsky himself was an epileptic, I guess he did indeed have first hand knowledge to support that feeling Myshkin has, when he is about to go into one of his fits or seizures; it is almost like a religious experience or an awakening.





> I am afraid I am behind on this one as well. Starting another book got me a bit distracted, but I've managed to finish the third part of the book and I am getting closer to the end  I think I'll be able to finish it till the end of the week, at least I hope so


*Alexei,* I am only a little past Part 3; I hoped to read last night but then it got too late to do so and I got too tired out. I will resume tonight. I read the character analysis list instead and took a short breather from the book.

New thoughts:

Anyone else have a feeling of forboding about the interchange of the crosses at Rogozhin's house...also the emphasis put on that knife laying on the table and that finally R put away between the pages of that book?
I think both forshadow the events to come...why else would they be so prominent in this scene?

Also, I find that Rogozhin is very unstable, almost as bad as Natasysa. Actually, it seems there are a lot of unstable and wounded people in this novel. It seems that only Myshkin is anyway stable and yet he is naive. Most of the characters one time or the other seems to be unpredicable or impulsive but Myshkin seems to be the focused one and no rash, although he did offer to marry Natasysa in a very impulsive manor but still I got the impression he knew what he was doing in asking her. I think he really was as a knight and wanted merely to save her from herself. So I don't know if his action could be called rash or unstable, impulsive...he seems to think out all that he does before he does it; even though he tries to reason sometimes and cannot fully grasp the outcome or solution.

----------


## Gladys

The interchange of the crosses is so moving: the prince's *tin* one for Roghozins gold. An expression of love. 

In the past, epilepsy has sometimes been misconstrued as idiocy. 

Is there clear evidence that the prince is naive?

----------


## Janine

> The interchange of the crosses is so moving: the prince's *tin* one for Roghozins gold. An expression of love.


Was it? I don't know, when I read up to that part I found it forbodding of some incident to come. I guess I am suspicious naturally and thought there may be some hidden motive on Roghozin's behalf and I found the Myshkin was rather reluctant to trade. I may be thinking back to a similar plot incident in Frankenstein involving a locket.




> In the past, epilepsy has sometimes been misconstrued as idiocy.


That is most likely true. If you read the some definitions online or in Wikipedia I believe they will mention that fact.




> Is there clear evidence that the prince is naive?


I did find clear text evidence by the author, not the perception of the individual characters, that the prince has some characteristics of naivity. I will try and post those passages tonight.

----------


## Gladys

> I guess I am suspicious naturally and thought there may be some hidden motive on Roghozin's behalf and I found the Myshkin was rather reluctant to trade.


 An expression of love? True love, Janine, never runs smooth - and once, long ago on Golgotha, even led to crucifixion.

----------


## Janine

> An expression of love? True love, Janine, never runs smooth - and once, long ago on Golgotha, even led to crucifixion.


For certain, for this true love that Rogozhin has for Myshkin and for Nataysia does not run anyway smooth. Well, the thought crossed my mind that maybe it was like the kiss of Judas. Right after that scene Rogozhin attempts to stab Myshkin in the stairwell, and then is only saved, by Myshkin going into one of his fits. I think I have an idea of futher events to come and so we should judge why the crosses were exchanged at that time. I hope my sceptism is not correct and this was a true expression of love on the behalf of Rogozhin. I know that it was not instigated by Myshkin...and like I said, he was reluctant to take the other cross in exchange for his.

The knife and the picture over the doorway both are forshadowing of what will come; I am sure of it.

*Gladys,* how far along are you in the novel?

I am not feeling well - now it is a cold I contracted from my sister. I just got over a stomach problem and caught this darn cold. Anyway, I can't post that segment of text tonight but will try to tomorrow night - the one on the naive aspect of Myshkin.

----------


## Gladys

I read 'The Idiot' before Christmas and have been rereading bits of it since, while deliberately avoiding commentaries. I stumbled upon the Forum Book Club a month ago and am currently reading Grass's 'The Tin Drum', Ibsen's 'Brand', and Sophocles 'King Oedipus'.

The picture over the doorway: "That picture! That picture!" cried Muishkin, struck by a sudden idea. "Why, a man's faith might be ruined by looking at that picture!"

----------


## bazarov

> and maybe he is saying something about modern belief.. as Dostoevsky did believe the only way Russia could be saved was through the Russian Orthodox Church...


Interesting, he pointed it in Demons and in Brothers Karamazov also. But not only Russia, the rest of the world also; although he didn't care much about others.




> '...after leaving the prince, the doctor [in Pavlofsk] said to Lebedev: "If all such people were put under restraint, there would be no one left for keepers."'


That's such a great quote. 
But it means that world is filled with smart humans which is wrong...




> The prince says it all. 
> 
> 
> 
> "Would Rogojin marry her, do you think?"
> 
> "Why not? Certainly he would, I should think. He would marry her tomorrow!--marry her tomorrow and murder her in a week!"


Interesting. The end and Nastasya's death were obvious from the start; Prince pointed it several times, Ipolit did it also; like there were no other possibilities.




> I also found fascinating the scene in which the prince went to visit Rogeozhin and especially the part about them switching the crosses (I have a really bad feeling about that) and the part about the painting over the doorway. .


That happened to Dostoevsky in Switzerland, he liked it a lot.





> I could not clearly recall when this character, Lebedyev. I did recall when he was first introduced into the story. Can someone fill me in a little better on this character and when he first appeared? I don't want to lose time searching back into the text, since I want to progress with my reading, so I can comment more in this discussion group.


He was in the train with Prince and Rogozhin.





> Edit: I failed to mention that two parts in the story have also greatly fascinated me and I believe they directly relate. One was the part when the prince was talking about the execution, and the 'second' before the guillotine blade fell upon the victim. I thought that whole passage extremely deep and interesting and I have not been able to stop thinking about it since. I realised there is much meaning in that passage and felt it also fortold some future event or events.


Execution - true fact from Dostoevsky's life. He was sentenced to death, but just before shooting, penalty was changed for 7 years in Siberia.
Guillotine - Idiot was quite inspired with Jean Valjean; and something similar was described in Les Miserables.





> The other was when the prince would speak of that 'second', when all clarity seemed to come to him and his sense of the world was heightened...the 'second' before he would lapse into an epileptic fit. Also, I was wondering if this is an accurate description of what people do experience who have these seizures? How did the author come up with his description? Did he have first hand knowledge of such things or was it entirely fictional?


Personal experiences; He suffered from epilepsy also.






> The knife and the picture over the doorway both are forshadowing of what will come; I am sure of it.





> The picture over the doorway: "That picture! That picture!" cried Muishkin, struck by a sudden idea. "Why, a man's faith might be ruined by looking at that picture!"



That's also from His life; He saw that picture in Switzerland, while he was writing Idiot.


Did Aglaya liked Prince because he was Poor Knight or she felt sorry for him like he did for Nastasya? 
When Prince said ''The beauty will save the world!'', did he meant on beauty of soul or beauty of face?

To those who despise Nastasya, remember the story from The Bible about Maria Magdalena.

----------


## Gladys

'...after leaving the prince, the doctor [in Pavlofsk] said to Lebedev: *"If all such people were put under restraint, there would be no one left for keepers."*'


> But it means that world is filled with smart humans which is wrong...


As I understand the quote, If we commit to asylums all those as sane as the prince, no one saner would remain on the planet to staff those asylums.

----------


## Janine

> Interesting, he pointed it in Demons and in Brothers Karamazov also. But not only Russia, the rest of the world also; although he didn't care much about others.


*Hi Bazarov,*I don't quite get your meaning here. Could your further explain? I know you are directing this to *islandclimber*, but I want to grasp the meaning myself.





> That's such a great quote. 
> But it means that world is filled with smart humans which is wrong...


I am not sure I understand this or the quote, not exactly. Can you explain it clearer to me?





> Interesting. The end and Nastasya's death were obvious from the start; Prince pointed it several times, Ipolit did it also; like there were no other possibilities.


I thought that also even though I have not yet encountered this part in the book and we are both giving this away although probably I am the one most behind in my reading. I found it out when glancing at some online commentary but I felt this would be the outcome from the various clues in the story and the forshadowing. It is not hard to guess.




> That happened to Dostoevsky in Switzerland, he liked it a lot.


So interesting, *Bazarov,* to know of the actual events behind this story - great! I always get into that sort of biographical information. I would like to hear more about how the story directly came from incidents or occurances in Dostoevsky's life. This makes it so much more meaningful for me. I love books based on true events or stories or experiences. This makes it all so personal and so much more thought-provoking.





> He was in the train with Prince and Rogozhin.


Thanks, *Bazarov,* Yes, *Gladys*, I think, pointed this out for me. I think maybe I will eventually go back and read that passage again. Trouble was I started the book and then layed it asside and picked it up later; I kind of forgot some details from the beginning.




> Execution - true fact from Dostoevsky's life. He was sentenced to death, but just before shooting, penalty was changed for 7 years in Siberia.
> Guillotine - Idiot was quite inspired with Jean Valjean; and something similar was described in Les Miserables.


Unbelievable...but so 'believable', really....because of the 'vivid' way he has described that moment. Why was he sentenced? I want to hear more.
That is curious about the guillotine and being related to Les Miserables...all the time he was talking about the death penalty issue I was thinking on a certain passage in Les Miserables....I believe the priest in the story was pondering the same issue and came up with a similar conclusion. I recall it standing out to me in the book when I read it, which is ages ago now. But that one particular scene I always vividly recalled - the portent of it.





> Personal experiences; He suffered from epilepsy also.


Yes, by some online research I have just found this out. I read a number of things about his personal life online; however, don't know how I missed the execution part. I must go back and read more.





> That's also from His life; He saw that picture in Switzerland, while he was writing Idiot.


Amazing. I suppose authors do get most of their ideas from real life occurances; I think this fact makes for a better novel and a deeper understanding.




> Did Aglaya liked Prince because he was Poor Knight or she felt sorry for him like he did for Nastasya?


I think she genuinely loves him in some way - not necessarily earthly and I don't think she quite understands it herself. He is so Christlike and so set appart from others that one would have to be drawn to him and his idealist thoughts and actions. He has that allure. I noticed that most who come into contact with Myshkin are altered somewhat after being with him, even for a short time. He transforms people and that can be true of the lowest human being. He seems to see the heavenly light that comes through in the prince
's being. Why then would Alagya be any different. She is quite taken by him but does not want to admit it. I could be wrong because I have not finished the book. It is just the feeling I have about her. In a way she does love him as Dulcina did to Don Quixote. I do think she sees him a the poor knight and she appreciates him inwardly, even though she is always calling him 'idiot'.




> When Prince said ''The beauty will save the world!'', did he meant on beauty of soul or beauty of face?


I am not sure; but his 'perception' of beauty, no doubt, is much different than anyone elses in the story. But, the fact does remain that the two main woman - Alagya and Nastaysia are actual physical beauties. I don't think he sees merely the surface of either woman though. I think this beauty is of the soul more than the face. Exterior beauty will not last and I think Myshkin would know this instinctively and still find beauty within. He sees them both being needful and broken, each in her own way.





> To those who despise Nastasya, remember the story from The Bible about Maria Magdalena.



From the beginning, I thought of Mary Magdalene. However, it is actually a historical/theological falsity, that MM was a whore or a fallen woman. She had commited 'sin' but we all have. Scholars now debate about her past; not that much in actual scripture is actually known about her. Most definitely though, Dostovesky is tapping into this idea of Magdalene being a fallen woman, in need of being saved by Christ, or a 'Christ-like' figure of compassion, and forgiveness. Myshkin does embody that person and so I am sure D was thinking of her when he wrote the role of Nataysia.

----------


## bazarov

> *Hi Bazarov,*I don't quite get your meaning here. Could your further explain? I know you are directing this to *islandclimber*, but I want to grasp the meaning myself.


Finish the book, please  :Biggrin: 






> I am not sure I understand this or the quote, not exactly. Can you explain it clearer to me?


Thank you Gladys. :Smile: 





> So interesting, *Bazarov,* to know of the actual events behind this story - great! I always get into that sort of biographical information. I would like to hear more about how the story directly came from incidents or occurances in Dostoevsky's life. This makes it so much more meaningful for me. I love books based on true events or stories or experiences. This makes it all so personal and so much more thought-provoking.


I will, I promise. I have to translate a bit from my books, couldn't find it online. But, in originally, story was imagined like something totally different.  :Biggrin: 









> Unbelievable...but so 'believable', really....because of the 'vivid' way he has described that moment. Why was he sentenced? I want to hear more.
> That is curious about the guillotine and being related to Les Miserables...all the time he was talking about the death penalty issue I was thinking on a certain passage in Les Miserables....I believe the priest in the story was pondering the same issue and came up with a similar conclusion. I recall it standing out to me in the book when I read it, which is ages ago now. But that one particular scene I always vividly recalled - the portent of it.




Yes, yes; bishop Myriel said it! It also crossed my mind immediately while reading. Great memory, Janine! Or just a great book... :Smile: 






> Yes, by some online research I have just found this out. I read a number of things about his personal life online; however, don't know how I missed the execution part. I must go back and read more.


From wikipedia:




> Dostoevsky was arrested and imprisoned on April 23, 1849 for being a part of the liberal intellectual group, the Petrashevsky Circle. Tsar Nicholas I after seeing the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe was harsh on any sort of underground organization which he felt could put autocracy into jeopardy. On November 16 that year Dostoevsky, along with the other members of the Petrashevsky Circle, was sentenced to death. After a mock execution, in which he and other members of the group stood outside in freezing weather waiting to be shot by a firing squad, Dostoevsky's sentence was commuted to four years of exile with hard labor at a katorga prison camp in Omsk, Siberia. Dostoevsky described later to his brother the sufferings he went through as the years in which he was "shut up in a coffin."


I think this 4 years is only how much he spend there, not for how long he was sentenced.






> It is just the feeling I have about her. In a way she does love him as Dulcina did to Don Quixote. I do think she sees him a the poor knight and she appreciates him inwardly, even though she is always calling him 'idiot'.


I remember Don adored Dulcinea, but I can't remember she liked him  :Biggrin: 




> I am not sure; but his 'perception' of beauty, no doubt, is much different than anyone elses in the story. But, the fact does remain that the two main woman - Alagya and Nastaysia are actual physical beauties. I don't think he sees merely the surface of either woman though. I think this beauty is of the soul more than the face. Exterior beauty will not last and I think Myshkin would know this instinctively and still find beauty within. He sees them both being needful and broken, each in her own way.


But why did he then said that ''beauty like that could change the world'' after seeing Nastasya's photo for the first time? Considering we think that soul was more important to him.

----------


## Alexei

I finally finished the book  :Banana:  The ending turned out pretty interesting  :Biggrin:  I found a lot of notes in the end of the edition I am using, so I'll try to check them out as soon as possible and post them if I find something interesting and useful.

----------


## Janine

> I finally finished the book  The ending turned out pretty interesting  I found a lot of notes in the end of the edition I am using, so I'll try to check them out as soon as possible and post them if I find something interesting and useful.


*Alexei,* I am glad you finished the book. Great that you have notes at the end; wish my edition had some. If you post, please put 'SPOILER' before you post, if you tell the ending. I don't want to know too much about that yet. I am sorry but I have 200 pages left to read. It could not be helped. I was sick all month and now I have a cold on top of that. 

I am doing my best to finish the book,* Baz*...really I am.
But one night I tried to read and felt too ill and had to keep it to one chapter. I love this book though and am anxious to move along to the ending now. 

I will answer your post to my remarks later tonight or tomorrow, *Bazarov*; sorry for the delay...your post was most gratefully appreciated and I like hearing about D's past and life. I would answer it now, but I don't have the time and I wished to quote a few things.

----------


## Gladys

> Exterior beauty will not last and I think Myshkin would know this instinctively


 Oh, so true! 

Nastasya Filippovna and Mary Magdalene seem to have little in common, though there is a candidate for Mary, in the ending.




> Anyway, I can't post that segment of text tonight...the one on the naive aspect of Myshkin


 Did you find evidence hard to come by, Janine?




> But why did he then say that ''beauty like that could change the world'' after seeing Nastasya's photo for the first time?


 The ending answers that question.




> The ending turned out pretty interesting


 For anyone interested in my take on the ending: 

SPOILER: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=34352

----------


## Janine

> Oh, so true!


I think it is true also...because someone, who is intuitive and sensitive as Myshkin, would see more than the average person would see within the concept of beauty. For instance, when he first views the portrait of Nataysia, his perception is not one of only physical beauty; in fact it is quite clear it is much different than that of Ganya and the General. What seems to attract him even more, is this 'certain something' in the eyes or the face; even he can't put his finger on whatever it is that draws him to the photo. I almost see this scene, similar to one gazing on the enigmatic Mona Lisa; although in this portrait, the sadness/tragedy/perhaps 'madness' is closer to what Myshkin sees; unlike the myterious expression, as in the Mona Lisa painting. In the beginning, Totsy also noticed this quality in the young Nataysia. It seemed to appear, when she was in her teen years, didn't it? Or at least, I think that is when it surfaced?
Perhaps one could say her look is mysterious to some, but Myskhin sees great tragedy in her eyes. He is the more perceptive one. Myshkin sees truth.




> Nastasya Filippovna and Mary Magdalene seem to have little in common, though there is a candidate for Mary, in the ending.


This is very true indeed. I kept thinking along the way that someone would appear that represents Mary Magdalene and so it is interesting to know this may happen near the end.




> Did you find evidence hard to come by, Janine?


Actually, yes, I am finding it difficult to locate again; but I am sure it is there. I just tried to locate it again in my book; I recall it on the right side page, even about 3/4 down, but I can't recall where I saw it - near middle of book or closer the first 1/3 - in fact, the words 'naive', and even 'naivete' are written in italics, so they should stand out. I know I saw it and now I am a bit frustrated, not being able to locate this exact text. I know it is a fairly long section of descriptive text, in which the author is reflecting on Myshkin. I should have marked that text, when I first read it; it stood out to me because, all along, I kept questioning myself, as to whether Myshkin was truly 'naive' or we got that impression from the other characters in the book. This revealed to me the direct thoughts of the author on that aspect of Myshkin. I will keep looking for it and hope I come across it soon, so that I can post some of that passage.




> The ending answers that question.


Oh, interesting, can't wait now to get there. Sorry I am behind everyone else. Will read more tonight and make good headway, I hope. I should be done soon.

[quote]For anyone interested in my take on the ending: [quote]




> Gladys,


 Oh, that was so nice of you and considerate, so I don't have the ending spoiled for me. One significant event I did find out prematurely through reading a character list online. I was annoyed they gave that key part away before I got to it. I like to maintain a bit of suspense in this type novel.

----------


## Janine

> Finish the book, please


Ok, OK...I will..... sorry to hold everyone up. I am working on it but I have been slow since I was ill and even feel asleep one night only after achieving a few pages. I will push tonight to read it and probably get close to the ending.





> I will, I promise. I have to translate a bit from my books, couldn't find it online. But, in originally, story was imagined like something totally different.


That would be great. I just love to hear the biographical information that relates to the novels. Whatever you find on this book would add greatly to this discussion. In the D.H.Lawrence thread I try to pull in things from outside sources in relation to the short stories - I think this adds greatly to ones understanding of a novel or a short story. Afterall the author does project his own life on his work; this can't be helped. It makes the work richer, in my opinion.




> Yes, yes; bishop Myriel said it! It also crossed my mind immediately while reading. Great memory, Janine! Or just a great book...


So it crossed your mind, also? How interesting. I loved the book LM - absolutely, it was probably the greatest book I ever read. I read the long translation of 5 full books; my friend happened to own it; was from her husband's parents; she very generously loaned it to me. 
I actually shocked myself, *Bazaro*... I didn't know I had such a keen memory...but then again when a passage in a book truly impresses me, I tend to recall the portend of it years later. That passage was very thought-provoking, so that I have often recalled this part throughout my life.

Thanks for the wikipedia article - very helpful! Sad though....




> I think this 4 years is only how much he spend there, not for how long he was sentenced.


Wow, so you think he was probably sentenced for even longer?




> I remember Don adored Dulcinea, but I can't remember she liked him


 True, but I thought, even though she fought it, she underneath did love him. I thought that she basically did not feel worthy of his love. In someways it is the same or similar in this novel since Dulcina called Don a fool all the time.....fool, idiot...pretty much the same and both Don and Myshkin are 'idealists'.




> But why did he then said that ''beauty like that could change the world'' after seeing Nastasya's photo for the first time? Considering we think that soul was more important to him.


Well, in a way, her beauty does change people, but not necessarily for the good. I think the prince sees her at first, as having the kind of beauty that is powerful and could indeed change the world - such as a Cleopatra type beauty - rare and powerful, alluring, yet dangerous. In Nayashia's case she could change the world for good or for evil, in Myshkin's eyes - remember he is an idealist. She had this potennial, but I still contend that it was not just the physical features that lead him to this conclusion; rather this raw power that he feels exists in the eyes or the face in the portrait. Powerful women do often rule the world. Didn't Helen of Troy' beauty result in a huge army (nation) to fight major battles, over that beauty?

----------


## Gladys

I presume all are aware that an on-line version of 'The Idiot' is available from this site at:'The Idiot' - on-line at Literature Network Forums




> I kept questioning myself, as to whether Myshkin was truly 'naive'


 I may have found your passage on the prince's naivete - the only time the narrator so describes the prince. Much later, the narrator also writes, 'Aglaya, beside herself with _naive_ amazement' - the only other instance in the novel. 

In Chapter 29, we find:

The prince blushed and broke off, without finishing what he meant to say.

In spite of his shyness and agitation, he could not help being greatly interested in the conversation. A special characteristic of his was the naive candour with which he always listened to arguments which interested him, and with which he answered any questions put to him on the subject at issue. In the very expression of his face this naivete was unmistakably evident, *this disbelief in the insincerity of others*, and unsuspecting disregard of irony or humour in their words.

But though Evgenie Pavlovitch had put his questions to the prince with no other purpose but to enjoy the joke of his simple-minded seriousness, yet now, at his answer, *he was surprised into some seriousness himself*, and looked gravely at Muishkin as though he had not expected that sort of answer at all.

"Why, *how strange*!" he ejaculated. "You didn't answer me seriously, surely, did you?"

"Did not you ask me the question seriously" inquired the prince, in amazement.

Everybody laughed. 
Not only is this passage far from straight forward, but also involves Evgenie Pavlovitch, who intrigues me still.

----------


## Janine

> I presume all are aware that an on-line version of 'The Idiot' is available from this site at:'The Idiot' - on-line at Literature Network Forums
> 
> I may have found your passage on the prince's naivete - the only time the narrator so describes the prince. Much later, the narrator also writes, 'Aglaya, beside herself with _naive_ amazement' - the only other instance in the novel. 
> 
> In Chapter 29, we find:
> 
> The prince blushed and broke off, without finishing what he meant to say.
> 
> In spite of his shyness and agitation, he could not help being greatly interested in the conversation. A special characteristic of his was the naive candour with which he always listened to arguments which interested him, and with which he answered any questions put to him on the subject at issue. In the very expression of his face this naivete was unmistakably evident, *this disbelief in the insincerity of others*, and unsuspecting disregard of irony or humour in their words.
> ...


Good work, *Gladys,* what would we do without you? I am not sure this was the exact passages, but it fits, doesn't it? I thought when I read it that there was no dialogue near the words, but my memory may be failing me. Now what part of the plot did this crop up in? Fill me in on what plot elements lead up to this part, if you can?

In my translation, the names are slightly altered, which is a little confusing, in this discussion for me. For instance, he is Yevgeny Pavlovitch in my book. He also intrigues me. I can't recall when he was first introduced or exactly who he is, or what his story is. I only know he was pursuing Aglaya for her hand. In my book she is referred to as Aglaia; see what I mean? Russian novels can be a bit confusing to read and discuss, with all the name changes and nicknames.

----------


## Gladys

> ...what part of the plot did this crop up in?


 Evgenie Pavlovitch's feigned attack on 'Russian liberalism' followed Lizabetha Prokofievna's:

Thank goodness, he's an idiot, and a friend of the house! Surely Aglaya hasn't fallen in love with such a gaby! What an idea! Pfu! we ought all to be put under glass cases--myself first of all--and be shown off as curiosities, at ten copecks a peep!

----------


## Janine

> Evgenie Pavlovitch's feigned attack on 'Russian liberalism' followed Lizabetha Prokofievna's:
> 
> Thank goodness, he's an idiot, and a friend of the house! Surely Aglaya hasn't fallen in love with such a gaby! What an idea! Pfu! we ought all to be put under glass cases--myself first of all--and be shown off as curiosities, at ten copecks a peep!



Thanks, *Gladys.* You always come through for me - you must have the novel memorized by now, or have you read it several times? I did consider later that might be the part of the text I read those references to the prince being naive. I was reading last night late but seemed to be having a hardtime keeping my poor tired eyes open. Also this part seems to plateau a bit and I am sort of bored. It is the part when Myshkin comes home to find all the guests at his house devouring the champagne. Now Evegenie wants to speak with him privately after they leave. I certainly wish they would do so and soon. Does anyone else think that some parts of the novel do drag out a bit? I think that Dostoeveyski can get a bit 'long-winded' at times, even stretching out some of the scenes. One in particular that I found myself getting impatient with was the one when the con artists barged onto the veranda and demanded the inheritance money from him. I simply thought after a while - 'lets get on with this'. Maybe I was just being impatient that night.

----------


## islandclimber

Janine if you want an interesting book about Dostoevsky's actual experience in Siberia, you should take a look at "House of the Dead".. It is somewhat fictionalized from what I remember but he wrote it about his time in Siberia.. On a side note, the opera by Janacek is also just amazing, I would highly recommend seeing it... oh Janine he did spend 4 yrs in exile in Siberia, and then was forced to spend 5 yrs in the military as a private, mostly in what is present day Kazakhstan..

I know this is dropping back a bit in the discussion, but as I haven't posted in some time.. =p It would've been interesting to see how the rest of "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" would have turned out... Because Dostoevsky did really believe that a return to traditional Russian Orthodoxy would save the world, and like Bazatov mentioned previously, this is touched upon in TBK and the Devils.. But what is interesting is the argument against any form of religion far outweighs the argument for religion, for russian orthodoxy in particular in TBK.. Ivan destroys all Alyosha's arguments, and though Father Zossima's dying words are supposed to be somewhat of a counter to this, they really do not stand up much in the face of Ivan's powerful and depressing statements of reality, in "rebellion" and "the grand inquisitor" I think are the two chapters... Ivan is terribly disillusioned and it seems as though anyone conscious or aware of surroundings would also be disillusioned by religion and the lack of harmony it allows in the universe.. especially on the idea of forgiveness.. I know in looking at his notes for the eventual entire story he planned on addressing these issues later, but it is interesting the nay side came out so powerfully in TBK.. and to tell the truth again in "the Devils"...

"The Idiot" is so interesting because it is the opposite... the Prince is portrayed as a Christ figure and self-martyred in a sense just like Christ, he embraces his sacrifice willingly for the better of everyone... A very depressing ending but nevertheless an interesting ending... is there redemption in belief in Christ shown here??? hard to say...

But I see the prince's naivete, or lack thereof is still being brought up.. I don't think one can argue with the fact the prince is portrayed as being regarded as innocent and naive regarding the world.. and there are brief moments where people are surprised by him and even change their views on him, but for the most part he is regarded as naive and innocent... he has no idea how to interact in what is the proper way according to russian society and that is constantly shown.. he constantly says the wrong things, and acts in the wrong manner, and this is due to his beautiful sincerity and honesty, but it would still be frowned upon and it often is in the context of the story...

I think the whole point of the story is that the reader realizes just how Christ-like the Prince is, how sincere and honest and wonderful he is, and to contrast that his actual slow destruction by the characters in the story, ignorant they are slowly marching him towards his own crucifix, but always slowly progressing to it...

just my take anyways.. i love this story.. it is one of my favourite of Dostoevsky's works... Actually of his 5 major novels I think whichever I am reading at the time is my favourite haha... seem to cycle through them on a regular basis..

----------


## Janine

*islandclimber,* I recall that you urged me to read Dostoyevsky awhile back and I am glad your did. I have bought several of his books now: Notes from the Underground" and TBK and C&P; anxious now to progress to those.

Your above entry is informative and insightful, although I am not that familar with other D novels, since I have not yet read them. I am curious. There is an early film by Ken Russell called "The Devils'...does it relate anyway to D's novel, do you know? Just curious. It is a very strange and very provocative film. I have seen excerpts on Youtube; it has a fine cast actually: Vanesa Redgrave and Oliver Reed...of course, Russell may have extracted some elements from D's work, but he does tend to create his own canvas and art form; which often times is quite demented and strange, although always fascinating.

Good suggestion about the novel on D's life story in prison and the military....thanks.

I see "The Idiot" much as you seem to. I also think he is seen 'naively' by everyone in the story, but I personally question continually if he is actually 'naive' - yes, in the ways of Russian etiquette and proper protocol, but in reality he seems to me, to have the clearer, deeper, longer ranged vision. Also, as far as everyone seeing him in the light they do - as the idiot; isn't this so similar to how Christ was perceived by the general public - he being so far out of their sphere and code of living. Christ was persecuted and crucified, because he was viewed as being 'dangerous', merely because his actions and ideas were so different, subversive to the majority. In Christ's being of gentleness and benovolence, love and forgiveness, became the very substance that the majority twisted to use against him, in order to condemn him. People fear what they can't understand and it is evident that here in "The Idiot" this same thing is present. Because they can't understand Myshkin or relate to him he is condemned in their eyes as an idiot, a mere fool; when in reality, I believe Myshkin is the only one in the novel, who has any sense of right and wrong and decency and forgiveness and salvation. Therefore he is automatically aliened to the teachings of Christ - "love thy neighbor as thyself".

----------


## Gladys

Hows this from Chapter 6?! The prince talks of his time in Switzerland and his friendship with the plain, destitute, consumptive and disgraced 20-year-old, Marie, befriended by the prince and the school-children he influences. 
They have planted roses all round her grave, and every year they look after the flowers and make Marie's resting-place as beautiful as they can. I was in ill odour after all this with the parents of the children, and especially with the parson and schoolmaster. Schneider was obliged to promise *that I should not meet them and talk to them; but we conversed from a distance by signs*, and they used to write me sweet little notes. *Afterwards I came closer than ever to those little souls*, but even then it was very dear to me, to have them so fond of me.



> One in particular that I found myself getting impatient with was the one when the con artists barged onto the veranda and demanded the inheritance money from him. I simply thought after a while - 'lets get on with this'.


 Is this the exquisite scene at the house of General Yepanchin that so illuminates the character of Prince Myshkin, thought by friends and acquaintances to be simple, naïve, an idiot - albeit with little conviction. In the long standoff with the Nihilist gate-crashers (Ippolit and his tipsy mates) the prince sways all to his generous view of the world, as evidenced by the unanimous about-face in attitude of guests, who were initially hostile to the gatecrashers.

Blatant is the parallel with pariah Marie and her school-children friends. Both are cogent pointers to the ending!




> ...the Prince is portrayed as a Christ figure


 I prefer to think of the prince as in Luke Ch. 9,

49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

----------


## Janine

> How’s this from Chapter 6?! The prince talks of his time in Switzerland and his friendship with the plain, destitute, consumptive and disgraced 20-year-old, Marie, befriended by the prince and the school-children he influences. 
> 
> They have planted roses all round her grave, and every year they look after the flowers and make Marie's resting-place as beautiful as they can. I was in ill odour after all this with the parents of the children, and especially with the parson and schoolmaster. Schneider was obliged to promise *that I should not meet them and talk to them; but we conversed from a distance by signs*, and they used to write me sweet little notes. *Afterwards I came closer than ever to those little souls*, but even then it was very dear to me, to have them so fond of me.


I loved this part, that you quoted; it is so beautiful - the image of Marie's grave. Don't laugh, but it reminds me of the grave of Snow White with the childlike dwarves tending it. I think the use of the rose, also is quite significant symbolically, in connection with Christianity. I somehow picture the roses red, maybe due to the blood, but then again they could be white for 'purity' or 'eternity'. I love the way Dostovesky expressed the mannor in which the children communicate with the prince (the lines you bolded up in your quote). Those seem particularly 'touching' and poetic...the way Dostoevsky used these phrases: "to write me sweet little notes", then "I came closer than ever to those little souls"....very endearing.





> Is this the exquisite scene at the house of General Yepanchin that so illuminates the character of Prince Myshkin, thought by friends and acquaintances to be simple, naïve, an idiot - albeit with little conviction. In the long standoff with the ‘Nihilist’ gate-crashers (Ippolit and his tipsy mates) the prince sways all to his generous view of the world, as evidenced by the unanimous about-face in attitude of guests, who were initially hostile to the gatecrashers.


Yes, that was the scene and you are right - it was stunning; it kept me thinking all the time. However, it just seemed to get very long. Maybe it was me, just been tired this week with a bad cold and I keep reading this book late at night; not the greatest time to absorb every detail. I guess I did not fully comprehend completely all that was going on in that scene; it seemed very intricate to me and things changed so suddenly and reversed somehow, if you know what I mean. Probably a re-reading would help, don't you think? I guess when I complete this book, I will be reading a number of scenes/chapters over again.




> Blatant is the parallel with pariah Marie and her school-children friends. Both are cogent pointers to the ending!


Still kind of slow (I'm a slow reader :Frown: ) and haven't made it there yet, but I am getting anxious to know the ending. I will get there soon I hope. Go on without me, if you all wish. I know I am lagging a bit behind all of you.




> I prefer to think of the prince as in Luke Ch. 9,
> 
> 49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
> 
> 50. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.


Good references for the prince indeed. I also kept thinking of this from the Bible in the beginning...




> Mathew 19:14
> 
> "But Jesus said, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven."


Actually, in Luke, you can find a variation on this thought, and it may be near to the quotes you had stated.

----------


## DapperDrake

Phew, finished it yesterday. Great book!  :Smile:  took me ages as I've just started an evening class so study has taken up some of my reading time.

Myshkin is a very lovable character isn't he, intelligent but simple and naive, quixotic but good hearted and innocent. I didn't think much of Aglaya or Nastasya to be honest, Nastasya is too pathetic to really be likeable and not a little crazy, Aglaya is rather spoilt and somewhat proud and capricious, though she does have her good points.

The Prince is plainly not stupid though may have been clinically an idiot at the end of the story, he is definitely naive throughout the story though I think that is due to the simplicity of his convictions and his lack of worldly experience. 

I'd love to discuss it in detail but I just won't have the time  :Frown:  just started reading Les Mis' too so I probably won't be around much if at all for a couple of months.

----------


## Janine

> Phew, finished it yesterday. Great book!  took me ages as I've just started an evening class so study has taken up some of my reading time.


Glad you finished it, *DapperDrake*. It has taken me ages also to finish. I have more to go to reach that last page. I am loving the book.




> Myshkin is a very lovable character isn't he, intelligent but simple and naive, quixotic but good hearted and innocent. I didn't think much of Aglaya or Nastasya to be honest, Nastasya is too pathetic to really be likeable and not a little crazy, Aglaya is rather spoilt and somewhat proud and capricious, though she does have her good points.


Yes, I would agree with Myshkin's character. He is so lovable and all the things you pointed out. I don't yet know what to think of the women characters. I do find Nastasya hard to take but try to look below the surface and see just why she acts as she does. Aglaya is still a mystery to me. I imagine by the end I will form more solid notions of each.




> The Prince is plainly not stupid though may have been clinically an idiot at the end of the story, he is definitely naive throughout the story though I think that is due to the simplicity of his convictions and his lack of worldly experience.


I never perceived the prince one bit stupid. In fact I felt he had special insight, sensitivity and sight that others did not have. He could pick up viscerally on just what made up the person as far as his inner-self. He may be deluded at short periods of time, in his perceptions, because he does see people basically good, and fails to see their evil, instead feeling it is but their shortcomings. Afterall he is an idealist. Most of the time though I feel he is more intune with the deeper resecesses of a person.




> I'd love to discuss it in detail but I just won't have the time  just started reading Les Mis' too so I probably won't be around much if at all for a couple of months.


I am finding it hard to get the time to do so as well. I will comment when I have completed the novel. It is one of the best I have read for a long time. I read "Les Miserables" and loved it; I am sure you will also.

----------


## _Shannon_

AhhAh! I finished, too...

I felt rather dissatisfied by the ending. Much the opposite of _Crime & Punishment_....it seemd completely devoid of redemption, and that the life of the Prince, rather than making people's lives any better, or richer, or fuller- really was somewhat pointless and yielded only to hurt and futility.

----------


## Janine

I am almost finished....maybe tonight or tomorrow night. I can't wait to get to the end. I did not read "Crime and Punishment" although I do have it here; so in your opinion, *Shannon,* you liked that novel best?

----------


## Gladys

> I felt rather dissatisfied by the ending. Much the opposite of Crime & Punishment....it seemed completely devoid of redemption, and that the life of the Prince, rather than making people's lives any better, or richer, or fuller- really was somewhat pointless and yielded only to hurt and futility.


 _SPOILER:_ 
Whereas _I_ found the ending far more convincing and moving than Raskolnikov's belated and doubtful "conversion" in 'Crime and Punishment', which I read in August. The life of Prince Myshkin overflowed with Sonia's compassion to a breathtaking climax - a crucifixion. 

At the end, we have signs of hope - forgiveness, redemption and even resurrection. In front of the empty tomb stood Simon Peter, "And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre". Didn't you see, Shannon, the reflection on these three faces as "the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like *lightning*, and his raiment *white as snow*"?

----------


## lugdunum

Hey everyone, 

At last!!! Finished last week  :Thumbs Up:  :Thumbs Up: . I really loved the book even if I tend to agree that I found some passages a bit long (although I think that it might be directly linked to my own mood and energy when reading). 

I really have to * thank all of you* for the great amount of work you've done. Your comments were really interesting,you all know so much that it has been/is a real pleasure reading through this thread.. I will certainly use the links provided to the spark notes. 

With regards to the ending, I must say that I was a bit disappointed, however, I'll try reading it again because I think I didn't understand everything. (I've been so tired lately that I tend to doze off after a few pages  :Smile: ) I've read your thread *Gladys* and will come back to it when I read the ending again. You've gone through a lot of work though!! and your point of view is very valid. (Also, do you know the book by heart??? How can you come up with the righ quote everytime !!! :Tongue: 

*Janine* have you finished yet? 

*Bazarov* your input was of great interest, the biographical links with the novel was really interesting. Thks. 

*islandcliber* I think I will also take your advice and read other D's novels.

----------


## weltanschauung

how can you not like this???

"There is nothing so annoying as to be fairly rich, of a fairly good family, pleasing presence, average education, to be "not stupid," kind-hearted, and yet to have no talent at all, no originality, not a single idea of one’s own--to be, in fact, "just like everyone else." To have wealth, but not that of Rothschild’s; to be from an honoured family but that has never distinguished itself for anything relevant; to be goodlooking but with it, not expressing anything in particular; to have intelligence, but no original ideas; to have a good heart, but no soul grandiosity; to have good education, but not even know what to do with it etc etc..

For instance, when the whole essence of an ordinary person’s nature lies in his perpetual and unchangeable commonplaceness; and when in spite of all his endeavours to do something out of the common, this person ends, eventually, by remaining in his unbroken line of routine--. I think such an individual really does become a type of his own--a type of commonplaceness which will not for the world, if it can help it, be contented, but strains and yearns to be something original and independent, without the slightest possibility of being so. 

Of such people there are countless numbers in this world--far more even than appear. They can be divided into two classes as all men can--that is, those of limited intellect, and those who are much cleverer. The former of these classes is the happier.

To a commonplace man of limited intellect, for instance, nothing is simpler than to imagine himself an original character, and to revel in that belief without the slightest misgiving.

Many of our young women have thought fit to cut their hair short, put on blue spectacles, and call themselves Nihilists. By doing this they have been able to persuade themselves, without further trouble, that they have acquired new convictions of their own. Some men have but felt some little qualm of kindness towards their fellow-men, and the fact has been quite enough to persuade them that they stand alone in the van of enlightenment and that no one has such humanitarian feelings as they. Others have but to read an idea of somebody else’s, and they can immediately assimilate it and believe that it was a child of their own brain. The "impudence of ignorance," if I may use the expression, is developed to a wonderful extent in such cases;--unlikely as it appears, it is met with at every turn."

this is my second favorite dostoievsky book, crime and punishment being the undisputable number one.

----------


## lugdunum

> how can you not like this???
> (...)


Hey, I really like that passage as well. I've actually flagged it in my book... good point D ws making there.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Hey, I really like that passage as well. I've actually flagged it in my book... good point D ws making there.


the difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary people is a reocurring topic in dostoievsky's writtings. one of my favourite passages of crime and punishment is precisely the one he wanders off into that topic:

"That wasn't quite my contention," he began simply and modestly. "Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so." (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) "The only difference is that I don't contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an 'extraordinary' man has the right . . . that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep . . . certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn't definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to; very well. I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound . . . to /eliminate/ the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all . . . well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed - often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law - were of use to their cause. It's remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals - more or less, of course. Otherwise it's hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are /in general/ divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter /a new word/. There are, of course, innumerable sub- divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that's their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood - that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. It's only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question). There's no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me - and /vive la guerre éternelle/ - till the New Jerusalem, of course!"

----------


## Janine

> Hey everyone, 
> 
> At last!!! Finished last week . I really loved the book even if I tend to agree that I found some passages a bit long (although I think that it might be directly linked to my own mood and energy when reading).


*lugdunum,* Good for you! I am still trailing behind you but I keep plugging away at the book each night before I go to sleep. I also think some passages are a bit long and drawn out. That might be my own fatiqued state as well.




> I really have to * thank all of you* for the great amount of work you've done. Your comments were really interesting,you all know so much that it has been/is a real pleasure reading through this thread.. I will certainly use the links provided to the spark notes.


That sounds good. I think I will do the same when I finish up. I also thank everyone for contributing so many great comments to this thread. I will also check out the link to the sparks notes - that may help me understand better some parts of the novel.





> *Janine* have you finished yet?


Nope, same like you; I start to fall asleep as soon as I read a few pages. I am hopeful to finish up soon; I really want to progress onto another novel or play.




> *Bazarov* your input was of great interest, the biographical links with the novel was really interesting. Thks.


Can't wait to read those, when I finish the novel.




> *islandclimber*I think I will also take your advice and read other D's novels.


I also want to read the 3 other ones that I recently bought.

----------


## Gladys

> the difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary people is a recurring topic in Dostoevsky's writings


 The prince and Raskolinikov are extraordinary, and both show much compassion, though Raskolinikov is much less likeable. 
'The Idiot' bathes the reader in joy and light, whereas 'Crime and Punishment' locks the reader away in the darkness of a dank dungeon. While a fine novel, reading the latter is akin to self-torture. More pleasant to read are such Dostoevsky novels as 'Netochka Nezvanova', 'The Village of Stepanchikovo', 'The Insulted and Injured', 'The Gambler' and 'The Brothers Karamazov'. 




> With regards to the ending, I must say that I was a bit disappointed, however, I'll try reading it again because I think I didn't understand everything.


I rarely get the ending of a great novel immediately, nor do I expect to. I also was nonplussed for some hours at the unexpected ending of 'The Idiot'. For me, understanding a Dostoevsky novel grows days or weeks after finishing. Isn't delayed gratification is part of the enjoyment of most literature?

----------


## bazarov

> I know this is dropping back a bit in the discussion, but as I haven't posted in some time.. =p It would've been interesting to see how the rest of "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" would have turned out... Because Dostoevsky did really believe that a return to traditional Russian Orthodoxy would save the world, and like Bazatov mentioned previously, this is touched upon in TBK and the Devils.. But what is interesting is the argument against any form of religion far outweighs the argument for religion, for russian orthodoxy in particular in TBK.. Ivan destroys all Alyosha's arguments, and though Father Zossima's dying words are supposed to be somewhat of a counter to this, they really do not stand up much in the face of Ivan's powerful and depressing statements of reality, in "rebellion" and "the grand inquisitor" I think are the two chapters... Ivan is terribly disillusioned and it seems as though anyone conscious or aware of surroundings would also be disillusioned by religion and the lack of harmony it allows in the universe.. especially on the idea of forgiveness..


House of The Deads is also very good.

*islandclimber*, I regret he never wrote "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" till end.

But, he didn't attack ''any form'' of religion in TBK. If you remember from those two chapters you named correctly, he attacked Roman Church. Grand Inquisitor is in Sevilla, and Richard was initiated in Roman Church; he never mentions Russian Orthodoxy. In Rebellion, Ivan asks Alyosha what to do with that man and Alyosha states:''Kill him...'' And Ivan laughs...Not to religion, maybe only to Alyosha.

Matthew, chapter 22 ;



> 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."


Alyosha is not chosen, and he realizes it later.




> "The Idiot" is so interesting because it is the opposite... the Prince is portrayed as a Christ figure and self-martyred in a sense just like Christ, he embraces his sacrifice willingly for the better of everyone... A very depressing ending but nevertheless an interesting ending... is there redemption in belief in Christ shown here??? hard to say...


TBK was his last novel, so there could not be a redemption to a Christ in Idiot, only the opposite. But, we know that it's not like that.
Also, similar to Fathers and Sons; where Bazarov died, in TBK Ivan also dies. Their death does not show only death of one man, more fall of idea. Alyosha stays, with his kindness and desire for helping and loving others.

----------


## islandclimber

> House of The Deads is also very good.
> 
> *islandclimber*, I regret he never wrote "The Life and Times of a Great Sinner" till end.
> 
> But, he didn't attack ''any form'' of religion in TBK. If you remember from those two chapters you named correctly, he attacked Roman Church. Grand Inquisitor is in Sevilla, and Richard was initiated in Roman Church; he never mentions Russian Orthodoxy. In Rebellion, Ivan asks Alyosha what to do with that man and Alyosha states:''Kill him...'' And Ivan laughs...Not to religion, maybe only to Alyosha.
> 
> Matthew, chapter 22 ;
> 
> Alyosha is not chosen, and he realizes it later.
> ...


yes, you're right Bazarov.. I was making much too wide a generalization... he was just attacking the roman catholic church... for the most part... and suggesting he was attacking all christian religion is quite the mistake  :Frown:  Ivan doesn't die in TBK, or I don't remember this??? his idea dies when he loses his mind though, as Bazarov's idea in F&S dies when he dies... 

thank you for correcting my mistake..  :Smile:

----------


## bazarov

> yes, you're right Bazarov.. I was making much too wide a generalization... he was just attacking the roman catholic church... for the most part... and suggesting he was attacking all christian religion is quite the mistake  Ivan doesn't die in TBK, or I don't remember this??? his idea dies when he loses his mind though, as Bazarov's idea in F&S dies when he dies... 
> 
> thank you for correcting my mistake..


Ufff :Tongue: , thank you also on correcting my mistake. Ivan didn't die, of course.

----------


## Gladys

> I am hopeful to finish up soon


 How are you going, Janine? 

I am missing a continuation of the running commentary you provided us on the first half of the novel.

----------


## Janine

> How are you going, Janine? 
> 
> I am missing a continuation of the running commentary you provided us on the first half of the novel.


Ah...so sorry for taking so long. I have never struggled so towards an ending. Thanks for not forgetting me, *Gladys.* I will definitely finish up tonight or tomorrow. I have only about 22 pages left to go; so I am anxious to finish and comment. I had a cold for a few weeks, so that it made it hard to concentrate or if I did, I had to read this novel slowly, in order to fully absorb it. Wow, there is a lot there to discuss. 
Let me just ask, what do you all think of the consumptive youth, Ippolit? So often he is featured in this story. He is definitely a prominent character. He seems very complex.

I still don't know what to make or Aglaia or her actions. She miffs me somewhat. How old is she suppose to be? I was a bit confused about the meeting of her and Nataysia at the house, face to face, and their words in front of the two men. Why did not Rozoghin get furious when she was left with Myshkin? Is that a stupid question? I thought he would be insanely jealous of Myshkin or by now does he despise Nataysia?

Does anyone know the year that this story is taking place? or the time period - is it mid to late 1800's or later? I can't get any true sense of the time this story is set in.

----------


## Janine

Yeah! Last night I finished the book! I have to go out today but later I will read the posts in this thread. The ending was truly strange, but good I thought.

----------


## weltanschauung

> The prince and Raskolinikov are extraordinary, and both show much compassion, though Raskolinikov is much less likeable. 
> 'The Idiot' bathes the reader in joy and light, whereas 'Crime and Punishment' locks the reader away in the darkness of a dank dungeon. While a fine novel, reading the latter is akin to self-torture. More pleasant to read are such Dostoevsky novels as 'Netochka Nezvanova', 'The Village of Stepanchikovo', 'The Insulted and Injured', 'The Gambler' and 'The Brothers Karamazov'.


the gambler is wonderful, although its evident the difference youll find in the depth of the whole story in comparison to later books. and that unexpected ending is so shocking you cant help but think "how could you fool me like that!"
buy yeah, agree with you that crime and punishment and the idiot are mood paradoxes, but i think the great catch about the idiot is the irony on the tittle, because although the prince is seen by everyone as the idiot, hes actually the wisest one amongst that circle of social insanity, dont you think.

----------


## Gladys

> the gambler is wonderful...and that unexpected ending is so shocking


 That the young Alexei Ivanovich runs off to Paris to be with Madamoiselle Blanche De Cominges, in the ending of 'The Gambler', is surely the _most shocking_ transition I have read. Years after reading, I am still reeling. 




> although the prince is seen by everyone as the idiot, he's actually the wisest one amongst that circle of social insanity, don't you think.


 Indeed.




> what do you all think of the consumptive youth, Ippolit?


 He is _impossible_ to like, and yet the prince comes to love him. Later in the novel, Rogozhin proves even less likeable. I ended up seeing both through the eyes of the prince.




> I still don't know what to make or Aglaya or her actions. She miffs me somewhat. How old is she supposed to be? I was a bit confused about the meeting of her and Nataysia at the house, face to face, and their words in front of the two men. Why did not Rozoghin get furious when she was left with Myshkin? Is that a stupid question? I thought he would be insanely jealous of Myshkin or by now does he despise Nataysia?


The young Aglaya gravely misconstrues both Nastasya Filippovna and the prince. The prince agrees to marriage with the Nastasya through compassion for two lost souls - for neurotic Nastasya and murderous Rogozhin - even though Myshkin truly _dreads_ both. His motive is to save Nastasya from despair and Rogozhin from anarchy. He fails, sacrificing himself. 

Aglaya is assertive, ardent and loyal, but lacking in intuition. Her love for the Prince could only have been defeated, by the awesome (almost divine) sacrifice the prince suddenly makes in the hope of saving Roghozin and Nastasya from despair or worse. Can Aglaya, or indeed anybody, be expected to recognise selfless love of such magnitude? If Aglaya had stayed longer in the house of Nastasya Filippovna, the prince would have explained his motives to the floundering Aglaya, giving her strength enough to refuse, later on, a disastrous Polish adventure.

Roghozin does not get furious at the engagement because the adamant Nastasya Filippovna is not to be trifled with. Remember what she did with his hundred thousand roubles!

----------


## weltanschauung

[QUOTE=Gladys;631972]That the young Alexei Ivanovich runs of to Paris to be with Madamoiselle Blanche De Cominges, in the ending of 'The Gambler', is surely the _most shocking_ transition I have read. Years after reading, I am still reeling. [QUOTE]

nononononoNO!
maybe it was only me, but throughout the whole book i never realised alexei was the vicious gambler. along the story he is always wandering off about "the gamblers", and he makes you look at "them", and not at him. the very last page is simply amazing, because its when i realised he also had no idea it was him, and not just the "others".

----------


## Janine

I read all the posts - all eight pages and thought everyone did a fine job in discussing this novel. It helped now to read these comments but I had to skirt around the other books mentioned since I want to read some of those and don't want to know the ending. 

*Gladys,* your commentary in it's own thread was great and very helpful, insightful. I will repost it for everyone here; it is so well written; I commend !

For anyone interested in my take on the ending: 

SPOILER: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=34352

Now I am exhausted. I voted, but immediately wished I could change my vote to the hightest in the poll - sorry about that. I guess I held back some, since as I stated before, I did find some passages a bit long-winded. However, this is a novel I would highly recommend to others. It is a very unique story and I liked how everyone commented about the Christ parellels, throughout this thread; *Gladys* even quoting some scripture from the bible. I will try to add some more commentary tomorrow. I desire to read some online commentary or the Sparks Notes as well. I am tired now so I am going to relax and watch a film.

----------


## Gladys

> i never realised alexei was the vicious gambler


 It only _now_ occurs to me that Alexei Ivanovich's biggest gamble was running off to Paris with capricious Blanche!

----------


## weltanschauung

haha, discussion over dostoievsky will never end!

----------


## Janine

> haha, discussion over dostoievsky will never end!


haha....and I hope it doesn't. That means this is a good group and the book is a very though-provoking story. I know with me, all of this is sinking in now. I found myself forming some questions in my head last night. I hope to post those later tonight.

----------


## bazarov

Now when Janine is over :Biggrin: 

In 1848 Dostoevsky was sentenced to death. He was part Petrashevich group; socialists utopists and on one meeting he read ''Letter to Gogol'' by Belinsky ( he was arbitrum elegantiarum in those days Russia) and the was the reason for death penalty. Execution should have been public, but in the last moment it was changed to 4 years in Siberia(described lately in Memories From The House of Dead) and 4 years in exile.

In 1864 his wife and his brother died; he decided to pay off all his brother's debts and it almost ruined him, and also he started to gamble.

In 1867 he went to Geneva, saw Holbein's picture ''Death Christ'' and says to his wife:''From picture like this, man could lose his faith!''

He starts to write ''Idiot''. His first idea of the story was much different from it's final. He imagined 2 families, he considered to be normal for his time; they were falling apart, morally and financialy. One was fallen noble family, father 
general who spend all his property abroad, and returned to Russia to live the rest of his life, mother, ''women worth of every respect, very generous but cranky'', families favorite - elder son,'' pretty boy, totally dandy, but would like to be original'', younger son who nobody likes - Idiot; and adopted and dumped Minyona. Second family: father ''reprobate'', friend with first father from scholar day, mother who is also friend with first mother, one is noble type and the other is type of clerk's wife, their daughter ''hero, pretty boy fiancee, arrogant and incredibly pretty girl''

In September of 1867, in newspapers he read about proces against Umecky family, because of ''overusing parents rights'' and against their 15 years old daughter Olga who tried to burn their house 4 times from revenge. Pairing Olga Umecka and Minyona he got Nastasya Filipovna.
Character of the Idiot was quite changed from first idea to final Prince Myshkin. Original Idiot was ''insulted, arrogant, with no measure in good or evil, he seeks resurrection in arrogancy''. Main idea of the novel was:''What a power, what a passion in todays youth, but still they don't believe in nothing. Unlimited idealism with unlimited sensualism.''
In newspapers he read an article about a man who killed another man because of golden watch saying:''God, please forgive me!'' and he mentioned it in novel. Name of the village was Myshkin.

On November 22nd of 1867, he destroyed his whole work on novel, next 15 days spends creating new ideas ''he was changing plans 6 times per day'' and on December 12th, he started final version. Main idea for final version was:'' I have one idea in my head and it bothers me for quite a long time, but I never tried to make a novel from it, because that idea is too heavy and I am not ready for it, although is very tempting and I like it very much. The idea is - to describe absolutely beautiful man. Nothing can be harder then that, in my opinion, especially in now days...That idea already happened in my mind, partly though; and I needed total form! Only my desperate position made me to write it now; I took a risk like on roulette, hope it will end well.''

He wrote a letter to his sister's daughter, to who he dedicated idiot:''Main idea is to describe absolutely beautiful man. Nothing can be harder then that, in my opinion, especially in now days. All writers, not only Russian but from whole Europe tried, but every time failed to describe absolute beauty. That task is extremely hard. Beauty is ideal, and ideal - not only ours, but from whole Europe is not even closely reached. Only one creature on this world is absolutely beautiful, and that's Christ, so existence of that endlessly beautiful creature is truly a miracle. From all beautiful literatures in Christians literature Don Quijote is mostly precise, but he is wonderful just because he is funny. Dickens's Pickwick (although not good like Don Quijote) is also funny and that's the only reason why readers like him. Readers feel pity to that beauty because it's funny and it doesn't realize how worth it really is. In that pitiness lies humor. Jean Valjean is also good try, but sympathy toward him comes from his great lack of happiness and society's unfairness to him. my hero has nothing of that, so I am afraid I will fail.''

Pretty boy family was idea for family Ivolgin - Ganya, general, Kolya, Varya and her fiance Pticin, and pretty boy fiancee was a model for Aglaya. Nastasya got attributes of all four woman main characters from original version. Rogozhin was the only of main characters who wasn't mentioned in original version. Still, he has many attributes of original Idiot, at least his bad sides ( good ones went to Myshkin). Another event affected on Rogozhin's character. In Moscow, young merchant Mazurin got 2 million rublya's after father's death but he spend them quickly. One night, he calls jewelery Kalmikov to his home and kills him with razor. He covered him with oilcloth, put four tanks containing disinfectant around him and it layed their like that for months in house where he lived with his old mother.

First part of the novel had great effect on readers, so did second and the third, but ''I am afraid for the last part, it must be great; whole story was written just because of the last part!''
Novel was finished in November of 1869.''I am unsatisfied with novel, it does not express even tenth of what I wanted to express. Still, I won't throw it away; I like my fallen idea equal.''

----------


## Janine

> Now when Janine is over
> 
> In 1848 Dostoevsky was sentenced to death...........1869.''I am unsatisfied with novel, it does not express even tenth of what I wanted to express. Still, I won't throw it away; I like my fallen idea equal.''


Very helpful! Thank you *bazarov*. I copied to my hard-drive and want to read the whole article and will later tonight. I got tied up with other things and only skimmed it so far. I love to learn the background and biography of the authors - this fully enriches my appreciation of their themes and their goals in writing. I did finish the novel and stated so above. Now I am letting it all sink in; I plan to read some notes on it and a few essays from other authors on "The Idiot". It was a very good read and wonderful book. The added material I read should suggest some more questions and some discussion topics.

----------


## bazarov

''I am unsatisfied with novel, it does not express even tenth of what I wanted to express. Still, I won't throw it away; I like my fallen idea equal.''


Don't know have you noticed, but Myshkin said something quite exact like this.

----------


## Gladys

> ''I am unsatisfied with novel, it does not express even tenth of what I wanted to express. Still, I won't throw it away; I like my fallen idea equal.'' Don't know have you noticed, but Myshkin said something quite exact like this.


To Lizabetha Prokofievna:
*There are certain things, certain great ideas, which I must not so much as approach*, as Prince S. has just reminded me, or I shall make you all laugh. *I have no sense of proportion, I know; my words and gestures do not express my ideas--they are a humiliation and abasement of the ideas*, and therefore, I have no right--and I am too sensitive.
About Rogozhin:

Here was I, with my days numbered, and he, a man in the full vigour of life, living in the present, without the slightest thought for *'final convictions,' or numbers, or days*, or, in fact, for anything but that which-which--well, which he was mad about, if he will excuse me the expression--*as a feeble author who cannot express his ideas properly*.

----------


## Janine

*Gladys,* Interesting that those two quotes, directly from the book, express exactly what *Bazarov* has quoted from Dostoyevski himself. Personally, I would agree with the author that is does falls some short of what he was trying to say. I just feel like there should have been more at the end but maybe that is just me.

I read D.H.Lawrence's biting commentary on Dostoyevski last night, although I have not read any other novels of D's so I can hardly judge if he is even close. Apparently he liked BK first time around and then changed his mind later in life. I think he basically says of all the D novels he liked "The Idiot" for certain reasons. I will have to quote some of those from his essay, plus read some online commentary on this book.

----------


## lugdunum

Thanks *Bazarov* for the very interesting article. 
I think I'll leave the _Idiot_ behind for now and move on to other books. 
However, like *janine* I plan to read the book again with notes and taking into consideration all that you all said... 
And as someone suggested read other Dostoevksy's novels. 

I'll probably do so over the Christmas holidays since I have over a month off... 

I hope to post other comments, but in the meantime I'll keep reading yours  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> I think I'll leave the _Idiot_ behind for now and move on to other books. 
> However, like *janine* I plan to read the book again with notes and taking into consideration all that you all said... 
> And as someone suggested read other Dostoevksy's novels. 
> 
> I'll probably do so over the Christmas holidays since I have over a month off... 
> 
> I hope to post other comments, but in the meantime I'll keep reading yours


I will do as well, *lugdunum,* move on now to another book or the Shakespeare play; but don't know if I will get to another D book until next year. I have too many others within sight that I wish to read now. At least, by reading this book by Dostoyevsky, I have gotten a sampling of the author's work - that is a start. I may read a short story by D which I discovered in a compiled volume of stories (happen to pick up recently free from my library). I don't know if I will entirely re-read "The Idiot", because I doubt I will find the time, but I may read over some parts again - like the train scene and several other key scenes.

----------


## Gladys

> I just feel like there should have been more at the end


 For those who see the ending as flat, let me recount my pathway to an appreciation of an ending, which is still magic, a year later. I tend to avoid reading commentaries because they channel my thinking. 

At the end, I expected high drama in relation to Nastasya Filippovna, but I was nonplussed when the Prince shed tears on cheek of the detestable Roghozin. 'How trite' I thought: the prince is committed to a Swiss asylum because his behaviour is evidently madness. But having read other Dostoevsky novels, I expect more. What had I missed?

In vain, I immediately scrutinised each word for some reaction from the prince to the murder of Nastasya Filippovna. Nothing. It gradually dawns on me that he actually pities the living (a murderer) rather than the dead (his fiancée) who is now beyond help. Imagine that! A similar event had occurred in the confrontation at the house of Nastasya Filippovna, where the prince chose to save Nastasya _and Roghozin_ (I now know) at the expense of the less needy Aglaya. And much earlier when he befriended Ippolit.

Lying in the bed with the murderer, all see his pity - his love - as madness. They commit the prince. Days later, I realise they have crucified him.

But the last page has a perplexingly positive flavour. Many weeks later, it dawns on me that here is a resurrection, if only in spirit.

I would be interested to hear what others made of the ending, soon after finishing the book.

----------


## hectorschemctor

no, this 'post' is not one to be pondered, nor thought about in depth. 
there are enough philisophically curious posts as it is - which is a fine thing.
i'd like to know if there have been any paintings or expressions of Nastasya an' Aglaya.
if i've offended any pretentious self-proclaimed intellects, for not presenting them with a worthy idea about The Idiot, i apologise but am not sorry. i have my own thoughts around this particular novel, and no where near enough time or patience to share them online, for you see i'm an embarrassingly slow 'typer'.
and ha, here i am justifying my question to people i may possibly never meet... or even know exist. brilliant

----------


## Gladys

Aglaya Ivanovna Yepanchin - photo


Nastasya Filippovna - illustration

----------


## bazarov

Isn't Aglaya too old on that picture? And she had a dark hair, I think.

----------


## Janine

Thanks *Gladys*, for your post about the ending. I can well see your points in that but still I am unsure of the resurrection part of the story. I just can't clearly see that; perhaps I need to reread the ending. Maybe start with the death scene and the two men and progress from there to the end. It may stand out to me more clearly on a second reading.

I agree with *Bazarov,* that first woman looks too old to play Aglaya. I also picture her dark haired and quite young. I think actually she is in her early 20's (doesn't the book state that?), but she acts very youthful; so in my mind she is youthful and probably looks it also. The photo looks like it is from a stage play? 
This woman /drawing? below it - do you know the artist? That does seem to depict the actual sadness of the character, but I would prefer to see the formal portrait with the hint in the eyes of deep sadness that is featured in the story.

----------


## Gladys

The Aglaya in the photo is too old but her expression, bearing and dress is everything I imagined. 




> I am unsure of the resurrection part of the story.


 I've only read the book once, but have reread many parts that puzzled me...and still do. The Biblical resurrection, as I'm sure you know, Janine, was very much a _private_ affair with an angel and the privileged few. In front of the empty tomb stood Simon Peter [the vacillating Evgenie Pavlovitch], 'And there was Mary Magdalene [the headstrong Lizabetha Prokofievna], and the other Mary [the pristine Vera Lebedev], sitting over against the sepulchre'. But the tomb was empty. 

Like the prince, Jesus had risen with a spiritual body. Just as Jesus appears _without fanfare_ before a select number, so the comatose prince eventually emerges, in spirit, first to Evgenie Pavlovitch and, later, to Lizabetha Prokofievna bringing as expected the forgiveness of sins: 'Apparently all was forgiven him'.

The idiots crucifixion is understated: his resurrection more so. 

After each visit to Schneider's establishment, Evgenie Pavlovitch writes another letter, besides that to Colia, giving the most minute particulars concerning the invalid's condition. In these letters is to be detected, and in each one more than the last, *a growing feeling of friendship and sympathy*.

----------


## bazarov

> I agree with *Bazarov,* that first woman looks too old to play Aglaya. I also picture her dark haired and quite young. I think actually she is in her early 20's (doesn't the book state that?), but she acts very youthful; so in my mind she is youthful and probably looks it also.


Nastasya is blond, and Aglaya is black, in early twenties, I think. I remember Alexandra was the oldest, and she was 25.

----------


## Janine

> The Aglaya in the photo is too old but her expression, bearing and dress is everything I imagined. 
> 
> I've only read the book once, but have reread many parts that puzzled me...and still do. The Biblical resurrection, as I'm sure you know, Janine, was very much a _private_ affair with an angel and the privileged few. In front of the empty tomb stood Simon Peter [the vacillating Evgenie Pavlovitch], 'And there was Mary Magdalene [the headstrong Lizabetha Prokofievna], and the other Mary [the pristine Vera Lebedev], sitting over against the sepulchre'. But the tomb was empty. 
> 
> Like the prince, Jesus had risen with a spiritual body. Just as Jesus appears _without fanfare_ before a select number, so the comatose prince eventually emerges, in spirit, first to Evgenie Pavlovitch and, later, to Lizabetha Prokofievna bringing as expected the forgiveness of sins: 'Apparently all was forgiven him'.
> 
> The idiots crucifixion is understated: his resurrection more so. 
> 
> After each visit to Schneider's establishment, Evgenie Pavlovitch writes another letter, besides that to Colia, giving the most minute particulars concerning the invalid's condition. In these letters is to be detected, and in each one more than the last, *a growing feeling of friendship and sympathy*.


Thanks, *Gladys,* that helps my understanding a bit; seems like you have thought about this novel for a long time and pondered it's meaning. I need to do so and re-read the ending. I now find myself already engrossed in another book and three new threads I started. Is there ever the time to do all? I guess that is my own eternal question.




> Nastasya is blond, and Aglaya is black, in early twenties, I think. I remember Alexandra was the oldest, and she was 25.


I agree with you - Aglaya is youngist and she is immature and she has the dark hair; unlike this actress; who indeed, looks to be too old for the part - she looks mature.

----------


## cicadamoon

This is my first post to this forum, which I just discovered this morning. Coincidentally, I've been reading The Idiot throughout September as well! It is a bit mind boggling to try to read all of your posts in order to be sure that I don't repeat etc. Hopefully, this post will not seem redundant:

The commentaries describe this novel as a "clash between good and the real world", with Prince Myshkin representing "good". Rogozhin is apparently the representation of evil and Natasya Fillipovna is "wallowing in self blame". The society which we are invited to voyeur is materialistic, superficial and deceitful. The general outcome of the novel is said to be along the lines of Prince Myshkin was just too beautiful for this world and was therefore destroyed by it.

Do I have this right?

Because I took a totally different reading of it.

And that is interesting, because even Dostoyevsky said that he was trying to portray a totally beautiful human being.

Does anyone know where Nietsche makes reference to this character in his writings?

----------


## Gladys

> The commentaries describe this novel as a "clash between good and the real world", with Prince Myshkin representing "good". Rogozhin is apparently the representation of evil and Natasya Fillipovna is "wallowing in self blame". The society which we are invited to voyeur is materialistic, superficial and deceitful. The general outcome of the novel is said to be along the lines of Prince Myshkin was just too beautiful for this world and was therefore destroyed by it.


 Here's a few facts. Prince Myshkin is unalloyed '*good*' but is viewed as an idiot, especially in the immediate aftermath of Nastasya Filippovna's murder. Rogozhin is '*bad*', though the prince gives us a less damning insight, as he does for Ippolit. Nastasya, once the ward and concubine of Afanassy Ivanovich Totsky, feels hopelessly worthless. Prince Myshkin's veneration of the '*good*', is not shared by society in Petersburg. His end seems not a happy one...or is it? 




> Do I have this right? Because I took a totally different reading of it.


 Please tell us, Cicadamoon, about your reading of 'The Idiot'.

----------


## cicadamoon

I think I know how this book was _meant_ to be read ie. Prince Myshkin is _apparently_ good.

Dostoyevsky himself states his intention in creating this character. 

At times, I do feel this --but at other places in the novel, the text has had the opposite effect on me. It's like I'm inverting/subverting the original intention of the author (unless he was just being ironic).

I know that Nietzche was influenced by Dostoyevsky, and whatever the way the intellectual influence flowed, there seems to me to be some themes that the two thinkers are working on.

Let's start with an idea which supports the contention that Prince Myshkin represents love and goodness. When Prince Myshkin responds to people as they are in the moment, he does not categorize them into "good" or "evil". He merely responds to them as they are. He does not dismiss the unruly crew that barge in on his party to demand payment--he deals with them respectfully. He does not seem to be concerned with social norms or conventional classifications--and in this way he is truly Christ like. And he is living the way Christ described in the story of the Good Samaritan ie. doing what he is moved to do, not what he thinks would be profitable (materially or morally). He is simply not making these types of judgements.

Well, we can definitely learn a lot from that approach! How many wars, interpersonal or international arise from judgements and classifications of people's actions! And yet, _judgements_ and _classifications_ are how we make sense of our world--or perhaps it is the way of thinking that accompanies the entire spirit of these "last centuries" (think back to Lebedev's speech about railways and the positivist/materialist non spiritual approach which grows parallel to industrialisation). Is Dostoyevsky pointing his finger at the folly of the very underpinnings of the thought emergent at that time? If so, then we are the inheritors of that thought today--caught in the endless categorisations of us/the other, good/bad and positive/negative etc.

Nietzche's thoughts on love were similar to this, ie. that which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil and that since "good" and "evil" are unnatural categories, _instead we should value that which is life giving and condemn that which is life denying._

Now, if we invert this back onto ourselves--we have to question why we, as the reader are determined to create classifications of good=Prince Myshkin and bad=Rogozhin!

And if we are going to use this approach, then we need to seriously question whether Prince Myshkin had a life giving or a life denying effect on those around him.

And judging from the fate of them, Prince Myshkin inadvertently had a life denying effect. Although he tries to help characters like General Ivolgin, Natasya Filipovna and Aglaya, he drives them to destruction!

In this way, he reminds me of Gregers Werle in Henrik Ibsen's The Wild Duck. Gregers is idealistic and is determined to bring truth and enlightenment to the shadows and dark places. His efforts bring about the destruction of a formerly functional little family and the death of a little girl.

While he lacks the striving characteristic of Gregers Werle, he still has a destructive effect on these characters. Why?

General Ivolgin--In this case he listens to General Ivolgin and doesn't challenge him on his version of his story. He effectively gives General Ivolgin enough rope to strangle himself with his own lies. His inability to challenge General Ivolgin leads General Ivolgin to feel absolute and irrevocable shame, from which there is no return.

Wouldn't there have been a kinder response? 

Nietzche refers to the necessity of acting destructively in order to enable life. He suggests that Uberman should not be afraid to inflict pain when it is needed, like a skilled surgeon. I would suggest that this would be a case where a truly Christ like figure would have had the courage to challenge the General to face his situation face on, so that he could maintain his pride. 

Natasya Filliopovna--have you ever been pitied? Or given charity? It is not a great feeling. Could you imagine a dynamic woman like Natasya being pitied? Once again, Natasya needed a real man who could challenge her bouts of childish selfishness and bring her back into her own strength. Pity never does this--it invites more shame. I probably would have done the same thing as Natasya!

Aglaya--he never really loved her with power. He just responded to her overtures. He was largely ineffectual. Would you want to marry a man who, when pressed for a commitment, just crushes down? He cheated her of a real proposal, he just went along with whatever the family seemed to want. He floated in the wind. When Aglaya wanted some sort of show that he really loved her, he just waffled between the two women. What kind of love is that? And then he humiliated her. It's not like he was aware of the materialism and shallowness of the society and strove to overcome it, he just didn't seem to get it at all! The thing that makes a hero is that he is aware of circumstances and he overcomes them. Prince Myshkin just wasn't aware of circumstances!

There is no neat way to end this...it is just a few thoughts I've been having about this novel. And I'll look forward to your responses which will hopefully either contribute to this reading of the text, or which will challenge me to clarify my thinking!

----------


## Gladys

Wow, thats some post, Cicadamoon!




> I know that Nietzsche was influenced by Dostoyevsky


 Are you aware that both (and Ibsen) were heavily influenced great Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard - the father of Existentialism and unordained priest, who died 15 years before the publication of 'The Idiot'?




> If so, then we are the inheritors of that thought today--caught in the endless categorisations of us/the other, good/bad and positive/negative etc.


 Absolutely true. Kierkegaard's philosophical enemy was the 'system', a philosophical theory of everything, proposed by the German idealist philosopher, Hegel. And Lebedev is an enthusiastic advocate. 




> Now, if we invert this back onto ourselves--we have to question why we, as the reader are determined to create classifications of good=Prince Myshkin and bad=Rogozhin!


 Certainly Prince Myshkin, living from moment to moment, would not have recognised or understood these classifications. (I use them to communicate with those that seem to.) Focused on the moment, Prince Myshkin has a life giving...effect on those around him because he trusts in the wisdom of Scripture: Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.




> And judging from the fate of them, Prince Myshkin inadvertently had a life denying effect. Although he tries to help characters like General Ivolgin, Natasya Filipovna and Aglaya, he drives them to destruction!


 Life denial for them was inevitable, without the princes intervention. In these almost _hopeless_ situations  as with Ippolit - the prince intervenes out of love and hope, not counting the cost for himself. But is he not life giving towards Evgenie Pavlovitch, Lizabetha Prokofievna and Vera Lebedev, in the closing chapter? 




> In this way, he reminds me of Gregers Werle in Henrik Ibsen's 'The Wild Duck'. Gregers is idealistic and is determined to bring truth and enlightenment to the shadows and dark places.


 Your parallel seems upside-down: the prince is _no_ idealist  each moment is a work of love (in the words of Kierkegaard). Dostoevskys counterpart for Gregers Werle is the idealist, Lebedev. Neither of them lives in the moment: both zealously advocate a system, and both tend to do damage.




> In this case he listens to General Ivolgin and doesn't challenge him on his version of his story. He effectively gives General Ivolgin enough rope to strangle himself with his own liesa truly Christ like figure would have had the courage to challenge the General to face his situation face on.


 Doesnt the prince's inaction do exactly that, and much more effectively than your Uberman? In your own words, the princes inaction (his indirect challenge) leads General Ivolgin to feel absolute and irrevocable shame. That there is no return for the general, reflects the gutless choice he makes. This fragile general is responsible for his salvation: the prince is powerless. (Incidentally, I have trouble finding this passage in the novel.)




> Could you imagine a dynamic woman like Natasya being pitied? Once again, Natasya needed a real man who could challenge her bouts of childish selfishness and bring her back into her own strength.


 The pitying prince offers love, _not_ pity. You expect too much from a real man: in my experience, such a direct challenge, if it succeeds at all, could take decades. For now, the prince accepts her as is. 




> He floated in the wind. When Aglaya wanted some sort of show that he really loved her, he just waffled between the two women. What kind of love is that? And then he humiliated her. It's not like he was aware of the materialism and shallowness of the society and strove to overcome it, he just didn't seem to get it at all! The thing that makes a hero is that he is aware of circumstances and he overcomes them. Prince Myshkin just wasn't aware of circumstances!


 I couldnt agree less. You imagine the prince an idiot, a simpleton, whereas he has _divine wisdom_ in his dealing with the two women...with everyone. I suggest you read my other posts on Aglaya is this thread and in the following: 
www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17436
www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30780
www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34352
I much enjoyed reading your sparkling post.

----------


## cicadamoon

I cannot tell you how fun it is to talk with you about this! So much more rewarding to be able to really discuss and wrestle with ideas from a novel as rich as this one--than just unreflectively moving on to the next novel.

I'll look forward to spending some serious time on your response. But right now I'm flying off to work etc.

I'm already thinking of borrowing a book about or by Kierkegaard in the library on my afternoon rounds today. 

Thank you so much, Gladys!

Cicadamoon

----------


## Gladys

> I'm already thinking of borrowing a book about or by Kierkegaard


 While Kierkegaard's 'true Christian' is the inspiration for Dostoevsky's Prince Myshkin, it is almost the direct subject matter of Ibsen's play 'Brand', his first acclaimed success. Brand is an epic poem about a young priest Brand and his wife Agnes, who are radical and heroic in their naught or all struggle of the will, towards death. 

The translator Miguel Unamuno has written, "...if I began the study of Danish translating Ibsen's *Brand*, it has been the works of Kierkegaard, his spiritual father, that have made me especially glad to have learned it." Disclaiming knowledge of Kierkegaard, Ibsen once said he 'had read very little and understood even less'.

Be warned: unlike 'Brand', the philosophical works of Kierkegaard can be difficult reading.

----------


## cicadamoon

What is interesting is how rich this novel is, that it can inspire a spirited discussion by two people on different sides of the world so many years after publication! I enjoyed reading your response to my commentaries on the novel--in my gut, I remain unconvinced by the comparison of Prince Myshkin to Christ. 

I do take your point, that Myshkin is not idealistically driven, like Werle. 

Haven't had time to follow up on that fascinating lead about Kierkegaard yet. So ridiculously busy.

What are you reading now?

Cicadamoon

----------


## bazarov

> What is interesting is how rich this novel is, that it can inspire a spirited discussion by two people on different sides of the world so many years after publication!


This forum exists because of that fact, not only this thread.  :Biggrin:  Welcome!

----------


## Janine

> This forum exists because of that fact, not only this thread.  Welcome!


I had to stop reading the posts, because I noticed you were comparing the other D's novels, and giving some of the plot away too, and I have not read them, but plan to; and I don't want to spoil the endings for myself. I did that with "The Idiot" and then I lost some bit of interest in the book for awhile, even though I liked it and did finish it. I wished I had not know the exact ending, even though one could guess at it at a certain part of the book.

Just wanted to let everyone know, that is why I have not kept up with this discussion. If anything comes to me I will just randomly post about it but to read your posts is too revealing about the other novels. :Frown:  So I have to stay clear of here for now. After I read the other novels - "The Brothers K" and "Crime and Punishment", I will come back and review all of your posts. I appreciate how much everyone has written.

Yes, I say "Welcome" too to *cicadamoon* - this forum is a great place.

----------


## Gladys

> I enjoyed reading your response to my commentaries on the novel--in my gut, I remain unconvinced by the comparison of Prince Myshkin to Christ.


 Perhaps you misconstrue me. Unlike others on this thread, I have deliberately refrained from making such a comparison. Nevertheless I am convinced that Dostoevsky has used the Gospel narratives both as an inspiration and, to a limited extent, a framework for the writing of "The Idiot". He's not the first to do so.

Can we agree that Prince Myshkin is _in some ways_ Christ-like, as I'm sure are many other characters in literature?

----------


## cicadamoon

Yes, likely I did misunderstand. I'm really running too fast in other areas of my life and possibly I need to spend more time pondering the thoughtful responses here. But, it's hard to slow down. 

Regardless of whether he is actually "Christ like" (as the cover of my book --a Bantam Classic--seems to indicate by the crucifix tied to him and the eerily "spiritual"glowing blue eyes) or just a "truly beautiful soul" (the quote by Dostoevsky on the back of this Bantam edition)--I probably wouldn't want Prince Myshkin as my friend.

Let's look at the "good" things first:

He cuts to the significant, he doesn't get taken off course by class consciousness or petit politics. This we see both on the train at the beginning of the novel and also during the dinner party held by the Epanchins to introduce him as a suitor for Aglaia.

He is detached from material concerns ie. when he thought that he was entering Russia penniless, he seemed unconcerned by it and when he came into a fortune, it didn't change him or his attitude in the least. In this way, he held the enviable position of being at the centre of the wheel of fortune! 

Mind you, this could just be the ignorance of a fellow that has never experienced poverty and has no idea the consequences...

He is compassionate with the people who come and demand money from him and lie about it.

He doesn't strive to affect people one way or another. He isn't constantly judging them and finding them lacking--he takes people as they are...Or does he? 

From his own speech (Chapter 7): "... When I came back here to Petersburg, I determined that I would see the _best people_[emphasis mine], the people of old family, of ancient lineage, to which I belong myself, _among whom I am in the front rank by birth_[emphasis mine]. Now, I'm sitting with princes like myself, am I not? I wanted to get to know you , and it was necessary, very, very necessary!.. I've always heard too much that was bad about you, more than what was good; of your pettiness, the exclusiveness of your interests, your stagnation, your shallow education, and your ridiculous habits oh, so much is said and written about you! I came here to-day with curiosity, with excitement. _I wanted to see for myself and make up my own mind whether this upper crust of Russian society is really good for nothing and has outlived its time,is drained of its ancient life and only fit to die, but still persists_ [emphasis mine] in a petty, endless strife with the men... of the future, getting in their way and not conscious that it is dying itself." 

Well, he was _judging_ them! However, despite their superficiality etc. he decides that they are wonderful and fine. He cannot see their faults. Mind you, it is ironic of him to be judging them when the whole purpose of the party is to judge _him_!

The thing that bothers me about him, despite all this goodness, is that he makes choices which he isn't really happy with, and either he isn't honest within himself about his emotions and his decisions or he isn't honest with the other person. This is indicated in Chapter 10--after he has "chosen" Natasya over Aglaya:

Here he admits that his love for Natasya is more like the love one would have for a "sick, unhappy child who could not be left to shift for itself". Hardly the love of a truly contented lover!

Natasya can feel that he has pity for her, but not the love of a husband for a wife and it kills her:

"...[from Myshkin's perspective] She [Natasya] was not in a state to reassure him. On the contrary, she had of late made him more and more uneasy. Till then, that is a few days before, when she saw him she made every effort to _cheer him up_ [my emphasis] and was dreadfully afraid of his _looking sad_ [my emphasis]. She even tried singing to him; most frequently she would tell him everything amusing she could think of. Myshkin _almost always_ [B]_pretended_[my emphasis] to laugh heartily. Sometimes he did really laugh at the brilliant wit and genuine feeling with which she sometimes told stories...But now her melancholy and brooding grew more marked every hour...he genuinely believed that her _recovery_ [my emphasis] was possible...He really seemed to look on his marriage as some insignificant formality, he held his own future so cheap...He noticed, however, that Natasya Filippovna knew and understood quite well what Aglaia meant for him. She did not speak, but he saw her "face," when she found him sometimes preparing to go to the Epanchins..."

And just before the wedding, Natasya barricades herself in her room weeping, in despair and hysterics and when Myshkin enters, she falls upon her knees before him crying "What am I doing? What am I doing? What am I doing to you?"

My heart is with Natasya. Here is a woman who strives to rise like a brilliant, beautiful and dramatic phoenix from the ashes of her childhood continued and repeated sexual abuse by a man who was supposed to be like a father to her, after the death of her own father. 

She has been marred, but she could heal. 

Many women have been sexually abused and have been able to rise again, however wounded they have been.

But Myshkin cannot see her heroism, her courage, her brilliance and strength. He only sees a pathetic little creature, humbled and humiliated.

By this pitying love, he keeps her caged and unable to really grow. He does not handle the situation honestly, but fakes happiness. 

A woman like Natasya cannot be fooled so simply by appearances of laughter. She is deeper than that. And her reaction is understandable under the circumstances.

Actually, Myshkin manages to humiliate and ruin the lives of both Aglaya and Natasya! And for that reason, I do not find him to be a quintessential beautiful soul. I would not trust him in a friendship to be intellectually or emotionally honest.

Of course, it's just an opinion!

cicadamoon

----------


## Natchat

I recently finished reading The Idiot for the first time, and have many questions about many of the passages. One passage which I have given alot of thought to is the scene with Myshkin and Rogozhin as they discuss God and exchange crosses. Is the cheap tin cross that Myshkin gives to Rogozhin meant to symbolize Rogozhin's values, while the gold one which he gives to Myshkin is meant to symbolize Myshkin's pure ideals and concept of God? Also, the Holbein picture of Christ really stood out to me as a representation of the vacillating extremes between faith and doubt, though I felt there must be much more to it than that. When Rogozhin said that he liked the picture precisely because it was making him lose his faith, could that be meant to reveal humanity's nihilistic nature? Any ideas about the meaning of this passage would be appreciated.

----------


## Gladys

> Regardless of whether he is actually "Christ like"...or just a "truly beautiful soul"...--I probably wouldn't want Prince Myshkin as my friend.


I suspect Dostoevsky would equate a "truly beautiful soul" with Christ Like, just as angelic Hedvig Ekdal is the _sacrificial lamb_ in Ibsens "The Wild Duck". You, Cicadamoon, seem to argue that the prince is neither, giving as evidence defects in his relationship with Aglaya and Natasya Filippovna. While disputing that the text favours your interpretation, I concede that Dostoevsky is deliberately ambiguous on interactions between the prince and the two women. My evidence for the integrity of the prince follows.

Consider how Prince Myshkin is portrayed throughout the novel. He perceives the good in everyone he meets: Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky, Lebedev, General Ivolgin, Rogozhin, Ganya, Lizaveta Prokofyevna, Yevgeny Pavlovich, Ferdyshchenko, Vera Lebedev and others. Prince Myshkin treats all these with courtesy, respect, kindness, generosity and even love. So it makes little sense that he treats _his two closest friends_, Aglaya and Natasya Filippovna, any differently. To argue otherwise requires the _strongest_ of textual evidence in support, whereas you have provided passages that are open to interpretation.




> He doesn't strive to affect people one way or another. He isn't constantly judging them and finding them lacking--he takes people as they are...Or does he? ... ... Well, he was judging them!


At the dinner party held by the Epanchins, the prince only judges in that he "forms an opinion: as would any sensible man. 




> The thing that bothers me about him, despite all this goodness, is that he makes choices which he isn't really happy with, and either he isn't honest within himself about his emotions and his decisions or he isn't honest with the other person.


He makes choices which he isn't really happy with simply because good choices in problematic situations are unavailable. Were he honest with the other person, disaster would ensue, as happened with the truth-speaking Gregers Werle. 




> Here he admits that his love for Natasya is more like the love one would have for a "sick, unhappy child who could not be left to shift for itself". Hardly the love of a truly contented lover!


The prince is vey much "a truly contented lover", although his love extends way beyond romance or passion, and acts whatever the cost to himself. The impossible dilemma, facing the prince, is how to save Aglaya and Natasya Filippovna simultaneously. With success improbable, he heroically attempts the unachievable, out of love: "he held his own future so cheap". 




> Natasya can feel that he has pity for her, but not the love of a husband for a wife and it kills her.


His overwhelming pity is undeniable, nevertheless, the prince _does_ offer Natasya Filippovna "the love of a husband for a wife" but is justifiably fearful that his betrothed, Aglaya, has perceived as heartless his incredible self-sacrifice in the forlorn hope of rescuing that desperate pair: Natasya Filippovna and Rogozhin. 




> And just before the wedding, Natasya barricades herself in her room weeping, in despair and hysterics and when Myshkin enters, she falls upon her knees before him crying "What am I doing? What am I doing? What am I doing to you?"... ... She has been marred, but she could heal. Many women have been sexually abused and have been able to rise again, however wounded they have been.
> 
> But Myshkin cannot see her heroism, her courage, her brilliance and strength. He only sees a pathetic little creature, humbled and humiliated.


The prince sees all her positives, but what can he do? While many women have been sexually abused and have been able to rise again, others like Natasya Filippovna are annihilated by sexual abuse. After all, this is nineteenth century Russia with a prim Victorian morality. As an unloved and molested orphan, Natasya Filippovna has been damaged irretrievably. Perhaps she might have recovered after years of tender-loving-care, but time was a luxury she and the prince did not have. 




> By this pitying love, he keeps her caged and unable to really grow. He does not handle the situation honestly, but fakes happiness. A woman like Natasya cannot be fooled so simply by appearances of laughter. She is deeper than that. And her reaction is understandable under the circumstances.


Certainly, Natasya cannot be fooled. From the beginning, she has recognised in the prince an unbridled and selfless love that shames her to the core of her soiled and tortured soul. As Natasya Filippovna sees it, the blackness of her sin is laid bare by his pure white radiance. His fragile laughter, innocence and humility amplify her guilt and shame. She cannot finally bring herself to pollute this noble prince with the leprous contagion of her guilt and shame. The prince offers her salvation but the despairing sinner chooses instead to annihilate herself through the unlucky Rogohzin. The prince had long expected such an outcome.




> Actually, Myshkin manages to humiliate and ruin the lives of both Aglaya and Natasya! And for that reason, I do not find him to be a quintessential beautiful soul. I would not trust him in a friendship to be intellectually or emotionally honest.


You do not trust him, and neither do his Russian 'friends', at the end. He is "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief". The prince ruins no one. He _gives his life for his friends_: Aglaya, Natasya Filippovna and Rogozhin. But to no avail.

An idiot?




> Also, the Holbein picture of Christ really stood out to me as a representation of the vacillating extremes between faith and doubt


The prince says of the Holbein picture of Christ that Rogozhin liked, "Why, a man's faith might be ruined by looking at that picture!" Ruined in the sense that such extreme suffering and anguish causes men to turn away from Christ - to be offended. Rogozhin honestly and unexpectedly replies, So it is! Unlike the prince, a suffering servant, Rogozhin has long turned aside from the harsh demands of the way of the cross. But with regrets. 




> ...the scene with Myshkin and Rogozhin as they discuss God and exchange crosses. Is the cheap tin cross that Myshkin gives to Rogozhin meant to symbolize Rogozhin's values, while the gold one which he gives to Myshkin is meant to symbolize Myshkin's pure ideals and concept of God?


So they exchange crosses: the self-effacing princes cheap *tin* cross for proud Roghozins *gold*. The exchange of crosses emphasises Rogozhin's extraordinary, though sporadic, need for the friendship and wisdom of the Christ-like prince: 'Parfen had called him "brother"'.

----------


## Janine

*Gladys,* do you think it is the 'need' that causes Myshkin to love Roghozin to the fullest, even though he is violent and commits murder, and Myshkin knows he can strike at anytime? Does he see him as he would a child who is disturbed or wounded by life and know he must be his friend; does Myshkin think he can save him from himself? I could not quite understand how the prince did begin to love him on the train and in the scenes that followed; then to maintain that love throughout the novel, even after having narrowly escaped having his own throat cut by Roghozin. I have been thinking about his the last couple of days. Is it that, being 'Christ-like', the prince is totally forgiving of those with the greatest sin, such as the thieves on the cross and those who are crucifying him; as in "Father forgive them, for the know not what they do".

----------


## cicadamoon

Gladys...I love how you tied Gregers Werle and his love of a "truth" into this discussion again! You brought an interesting aspect to my interpretation. And in doing so, you illuminated something that I thought that I'd examined critically in my own life ie. that things don't need to be "true" or not... and then I went off criticizing Prince Myshkin because he wasn't being "intellectually or emotionally truthful"! Well, obviously it's an issue for me personally, or it wouldn't emerge so strongly as a theme in my interpretation!

Okay, I think that your interpretation is closer to Dostoyevsky's original intent. Nevertheless, it is interesting to take a text and play with it, twist it and read it differently than was originally intended.

I am reading the text from Natasya's point of view because it is fun to invert the narrative. 

But, I'm ready to let this rest now. 

I've started the Tin Drum and I'm enjoying the dry wit immensely. I won't comment or read any comments on it until I've finished it.

Looking forward to some good discussions?

Thank you again for taking the time to really work my ideas over.

Cicadamoon

----------


## Gladys

> I've started The Tin Drum and I'm enjoying the dry wit immensely.


 I look forward to your comments, Cicadamoon, because all dialogue on Forum Book Club - October dried up mid-way through that novel. If you post there, I will happily respond.

I'm glad, Janine, that you still keep in touch with this thread. 'The Idiot' is a book one keeps thinking of. So also was 'The Brothers Karamazov', which I read long ago. 




> do you think it is the 'need' that causes Myshkin to love Roghozin to the fullest, even though he is violent and commits murder, and Myshkin knows he can strike at anytime?


 Love itself motivates Prince Myshkin, not 'need'. He lives in the moment.




> Does he see him as he would a child who is disturbed or wounded by life and know he must be his friend; does Myshkin think he can save him from himself?


 Prince Myshkin see Roghozin as one in need, not as a child. The prince hopes, rather than thinks, that he can save Roghozin from himself.




> I could not quite understand how the prince did begin to love him on the train and in the scenes that followed; then to maintain that love throughout the novel, even after having narrowly escaped having his own throat cut by Roghozin. I have been thinking about his the last couple of days.


 In the words of the hymn, 'O perfect Love, all human thought transcending'. To love the unlovable! Think too of the noxious Ippolit.

----------


## Natchat

Thanks.. I never thought about Rogozhin's reaction to the Holbein picture as taking offense at the suffering of Christ. I think because I personally look on such suffering as noble, I was always seeing it that way even through other character's eyes. I saw Rogozhin's attraction to the picture even while it was making him lose his faith, as the obsession with one's doubt over their faith. (Probably another personal interpretation.) 

When Myshkin said, "You want to exchange crosses? Certainly, Parfyon, I am delighted. We will be brothers!", I took this as an innocent invitation of friendship on his part. As Rogozhin's response was, "the same mistrustfulness, the same bitter, almost ironical smile" I thought that Rogozhin was merely playing along with Myshkin mockingly, all along treating Myshkin's invitation as a childlike naivete. 

I wasn't sure how to tag quotes and insert them into my reply, do you just copy and paste? Of course I tried just clicking on "quote" but I still wasn't able to highlight anything.

----------


## Gladys

> Thanks.. I never thought about Rogozhin's reaction to the Holbein picture as taking offense at the suffering of Christ. I think because I personally look on such suffering as noble...


 While Christ's suffering may seem noble from a safe distance (in time and space), the Holbein picture transports Rogozhin (like the denying Peter) to the foot of that terrible cross with its siren call, 'follow me'. A hard saying is Luke 7:23, 'And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me'.




> When Myshkin said, "You want to exchange crosses? ... ... I thought that Rogozhin was merely playing along with Myshkin mockingly, all along treating Myshkin's invitation as a childlike naivete.


 The vulnerable and desperate pair, Natasya Filippovna and Rogozhin, see more in the prince than naivete. The prince would save the needy and the lost.




> I wasn't sure how to tag quotes


 Click on 'Quote', delete unwanted text in the resultant screen, and click on 'Preview Post'.

----------


## NickAdams

I can't believe I missed this! :Frown:

----------


## Janine

> I can't believe I missed this!


*Nick,* sorry you missed it too; back in Sept and October, it was such a great discussion. I had to miss out on some of it, but I was able to get in a few comments and discussions with others. This is the first D book have read, and I was quite impressed by it. I have many of the others to read...well, eventually...

----------

