Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
slow-paced
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
emotional
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
funny
reflective
slow-paced
A book called “The Idiot” is without a doubt written by a genius as it’s one of the most brilliant works of literature I’ve ever come across…and this phenomenon alone does not reflect half as much irony as there actually is in this book. I have no other ideas how else to explain it other than to say that this is the most thought provoking and intriguing work I have ever read in my life. However, I don't want to write a long introduction as I already have a lot to go over so I shall begin this review right away.
One of the most salient things about the book is of course its title. “Idiot” is a word mentioned throughout the novel during which this word is projected, manipulated and thrown around – the story even ends with this word, leaving its definition hanging in the air. For the ones unfamiliar with the plot, the word is mostly addressed to the protagonist of the work, prince Myshkin, who portrays himself as the ideal human and embodiment of undeniable goodness. Now there are multiple theories about why or whether such insults were thrown at him and I will start with what I consider as the main idea of the book.
Contrasting characters is common in Russian literature and such technique is strongly noticeable in “The Idiot” as well. In the big picture, I consider two approaches to it: the religious approach and the social approach. Let’s start with the first one which mainly manifests between the characters Myshkin and Rogozhin. Throughout the work, Prince Myshkin is portrayed as the ideal of a person who is condemned and misunderstood by a degraded society. He is opposed by Rogozhin, whose name, by the way, already contains the word "rog" which in Russian means horn and indicates the satanic nature of the character. Thus, it can be concluded that Dostoevsky referred to Christianity through these characters by comparing Jesus to Myshkin through their misunderstood goodness and the fatality of their attempts to save humanity.
The other way to approach this is to look at the dynamic between prince Myshkin and society and understand their complete opposition. The prince's open sincerity, kindness and unwavering desire to help everyone to feel the depth and beauty of life contrasts strongly with society he moved to, where people shine with envy, greed, manipulative duplicity and neatly polished shallowness of the elite class. At the same time, it’s also interesting to notice how, during the book, prince Myshkin begins to take on the role of being the "idiot" more and more until finally he really does fall into madness. But is that because he really was an idiot from the beginning, or did he become that way because of society who projected its own idiocy onto him? (As a side note: projecting was also a recurring theme in the book, but I won't go deeper into it at the moment). The prince, who tried to save self-destructive and condemned people with his kindness, failed in his actions and destroyed the others as well as himself because his goodness was always seen as something other than what it really was. From both approaches that I’ve mentioned, only one conclusion can be drawn: society simply isn’t ready for such goodness. An interesting side note is also the fact that in comparison to prince Myshkin, I sympathised much more with Raskolnikov’s character from Crime and Punishment, who contrasts very strongly with the prince's goodness. Now what does that say about me and the society I live in...?
However, talking about favourite characters, I still found a few from this book as well. Beginning with Nastassja Filippovna who was the novel’s turning point and its tragic final solution. What is most intriguing about her is her controversial character and her chaotic relationship between self-destruction and self-preservation. Her presence in the book raises several questions, and the most fascinating about her is her way of constantly bringing herself closer to doom whilst fighting her inability to accept happiness. Her storyline is also rather frustrating since it shows perfectly how prejudices and stigmatised conditions can affect one’s life. Nastassja Filippovna, a traumatised child and a woman with a difficult backstory, carries a message about the importance of empathy as people's ability to look beyond what is in front of them.
The last character I would like to mention and also tie in with another theme of the book is Ippolit Terentyev who embodied the effect of death on the person who awaits it. Dostoevsky himself wrote “The Idiot” after his time in exile and gained a lot of inspiration from almost getting executed. That’s a topic this novel also strongly touches upon and similarly to “Crime and Punishment” explores the justification of different punishments, such as executions. The character of Ippolit is also a man, waiting for his death and I think it's rather interesting how Dostoevsky questions whether death is a punishment or maybe it's not about the death but the fact that one knows how it will arrive, whether waiting to be hanged or awaiting for their illness to rob them of life. Something that heavily distinguishes Ippolit from Myshkin is their relationship with death and religion. Both of them are struggling with a fatal illness, yet one takes it as God's will and does not fear the consequences while the other loses faith and curses the unfairness of the world. Somehow I understand both perspectives but I find it amusing how Dostoevsky portrays it through dreams and other symbolism.
I’m going to finish this review here though I have a lot more to say. Without a doubt this is one of my favourite books and I strongly urge you to pick this up even though it can be a slightly more complicated or time consuming read. Because despite the long journey, in the end it is an absolutely stunning piece of literature which has been reeling in my head since the day I started it and will continue so for a long while
One of the most salient things about the book is of course its title. “Idiot” is a word mentioned throughout the novel during which this word is projected, manipulated and thrown around – the story even ends with this word, leaving its definition hanging in the air. For the ones unfamiliar with the plot, the word is mostly addressed to the protagonist of the work, prince Myshkin, who portrays himself as the ideal human and embodiment of undeniable goodness. Now there are multiple theories about why or whether such insults were thrown at him and I will start with what I consider as the main idea of the book.
Contrasting characters is common in Russian literature and such technique is strongly noticeable in “The Idiot” as well. In the big picture, I consider two approaches to it: the religious approach and the social approach. Let’s start with the first one which mainly manifests between the characters Myshkin and Rogozhin. Throughout the work, Prince Myshkin is portrayed as the ideal of a person who is condemned and misunderstood by a degraded society. He is opposed by Rogozhin, whose name, by the way, already contains the word "rog" which in Russian means horn and indicates the satanic nature of the character. Thus, it can be concluded that Dostoevsky referred to Christianity through these characters by comparing Jesus to Myshkin through their misunderstood goodness and the fatality of their attempts to save humanity.
The other way to approach this is to look at the dynamic between prince Myshkin and society and understand their complete opposition. The prince's open sincerity, kindness and unwavering desire to help everyone to feel the depth and beauty of life contrasts strongly with society he moved to, where people shine with envy, greed, manipulative duplicity and neatly polished shallowness of the elite class. At the same time, it’s also interesting to notice how, during the book, prince Myshkin begins to take on the role of being the "idiot" more and more until finally he really does fall into madness. But is that because he really was an idiot from the beginning, or did he become that way because of society who projected its own idiocy onto him? (As a side note: projecting was also a recurring theme in the book, but I won't go deeper into it at the moment). The prince, who tried to save self-destructive and condemned people with his kindness, failed in his actions and destroyed the others as well as himself because his goodness was always seen as something other than what it really was. From both approaches that I’ve mentioned, only one conclusion can be drawn: society simply isn’t ready for such goodness. An interesting side note is also the fact that in comparison to prince Myshkin, I sympathised much more with Raskolnikov’s character from Crime and Punishment, who contrasts very strongly with the prince's goodness. Now what does that say about me and the society I live in...?
However, talking about favourite characters, I still found a few from this book as well. Beginning with Nastassja Filippovna who was the novel’s turning point and its tragic final solution. What is most intriguing about her is her controversial character and her chaotic relationship between self-destruction and self-preservation. Her presence in the book raises several questions, and the most fascinating about her is her way of constantly bringing herself closer to doom whilst fighting her inability to accept happiness. Her storyline is also rather frustrating since it shows perfectly how prejudices and stigmatised conditions can affect one’s life. Nastassja Filippovna, a traumatised child and a woman with a difficult backstory, carries a message about the importance of empathy as people's ability to look beyond what is in front of them.
The last character I would like to mention and also tie in with another theme of the book is Ippolit Terentyev who embodied the effect of death on the person who awaits it. Dostoevsky himself wrote “The Idiot” after his time in exile and gained a lot of inspiration from almost getting executed. That’s a topic this novel also strongly touches upon and similarly to “Crime and Punishment” explores the justification of different punishments, such as executions. The character of Ippolit is also a man, waiting for his death and I think it's rather interesting how Dostoevsky questions whether death is a punishment or maybe it's not about the death but the fact that one knows how it will arrive, whether waiting to be hanged or awaiting for their illness to rob them of life. Something that heavily distinguishes Ippolit from Myshkin is their relationship with death and religion. Both of them are struggling with a fatal illness, yet one takes it as God's will and does not fear the consequences while the other loses faith and curses the unfairness of the world. Somehow I understand both perspectives but I find it amusing how Dostoevsky portrays it through dreams and other symbolism.
I’m going to finish this review here though I have a lot more to say. Without a doubt this is one of my favourite books and I strongly urge you to pick this up even though it can be a slightly more complicated or time consuming read. Because despite the long journey, in the end it is an absolutely stunning piece of literature which has been reeling in my head since the day I started it and will continue so for a long while
An absolute web of themes and philosophical questions plopped straight onto the reader's lap. Almost every character has great depth (especially the main ones, obviously) and stand as political/religious/social allegories that absolutely require context and historical/political knowledge to fully decipher. All the eggs are in one basket here; The characters and Dostoevsky's ruminations on the themes brought up by these characters' personalities (and resultant actions) are what you are reading this for.
The text is very insular--very reliant on dialogue and internal monologue. Over the, like, 600 pages of this book, there are only a couple of settings/locations in which action takes place.
This was an absolute slog to read at some points in the text, owing mainly to Dostoevsky's (or, the translator's, I suppose) verbose writing style and the seemingly improvisational plot structure. This book is very often ironic or very subtle--combined with my previous complaint, I'm sure I missed some very important points brought up throughout.
Absolutely a book to be read two or three more times, although I can't say I'm chomping at the bit. That being said, still glad I read it--some absolutely fucking profound gems in the rough of the text, and I had to put this book down at least 3 or 4 times to just think for ten minutes about what I had just read. Hearing that this is generally ranked by readers lower than at least 3 or 4 of Dostoevsky's other books is quite shocking and makes me excited to dive into his other works despite my problems with this one.
The text is very insular--very reliant on dialogue and internal monologue. Over the, like, 600 pages of this book, there are only a couple of settings/locations in which action takes place.
This was an absolute slog to read at some points in the text, owing mainly to Dostoevsky's (or, the translator's, I suppose) verbose writing style and the seemingly improvisational plot structure. This book is very often ironic or very subtle--combined with my previous complaint, I'm sure I missed some very important points brought up throughout.
Absolutely a book to be read two or three more times, although I can't say I'm chomping at the bit. That being said, still glad I read it--some absolutely fucking profound gems in the rough of the text, and I had to put this book down at least 3 or 4 times to just think for ten minutes about what I had just read. Hearing that this is generally ranked by readers lower than at least 3 or 4 of Dostoevsky's other books is quite shocking and makes me excited to dive into his other works despite my problems with this one.
lighthearted
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
slow-paced
challenging
dark
informative
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes