Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
dark
emotional
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Maybe if I was more intrigued by Russian culture.
Maybe if I could tolerate realism in this terribly realistic world.
Maybe if I wasn't feeling burned out from reading too much slow-burning literary fiction.
Or maybe if I put more effort into reading it. Maybe then I would've loved The Idiot.
I know there's greatness in this novel, hiding somewhere in the details of its beautifully painted characters. But try as I might, it was simply too much.
It's like a large, filling, nutritious meal that is a little too hard to digest.
The novel is lengthy, and the pacing is so slow, that by the time it starts to pick up I'd already lost all interest.
I know I would enjoy it more if I read it differently. If I read it more slowly and paid more attention to its details, but like I said, it's hard to take it all in in this form.
But at the same time the only excuse I could give it is that it is a product of its time and environment. Because I know, and have experienced stories that are faster-paced and more entertaining, while maintaining a similar level of details.
It's also worth mentioning that despite how interesting and complex the characters are, I could not relate to any of them, I could only watch them through a glass wall, unable to be more invested, which made it harder for me to stay interested. It was a rather impersonal experience.
I keep contrasting The Idiot to another novel full of characters and details and allegories: One Hundred Years of Solitude. Despite having some things in common, one is my all time favorite novels, and the other is one of my most miserable reading experiences.
When I compare the two, I immediately understand why I feel so differently about them. I enjoyed 100 Years because:
- It was faster paced. Literally telling the story of ab entire family over a 100 years in fewer pages than The Idiot.
- It is the grand-daddy of magical-realism. And just that hint of magic is enough to make the novel enchanting. Meanwhile The Idiot is bleak in its realism.
- It juggles the focus between the bigger picture and the details as needed, and leaves some of its most beautiful elements just beneath the surface, so when you go digging deeper, you are justly rewarded. While The Idiot insists on pointing out its themes through long, sometimes exhausting scenes.
- The characters are more relatable and more varied, lacking the false nobility of the upper class which The Idiot focuses on. In fact, there is no such thing as upper class in 100 Years, and the characters are considered noble in a different way, through action rather than inheritance or fancy articulation.
I can't help but think this text would make for an excellent adaptation in a more accessible medium.
Maybe if I could tolerate realism in this terribly realistic world.
Maybe if I wasn't feeling burned out from reading too much slow-burning literary fiction.
Or maybe if I put more effort into reading it. Maybe then I would've loved The Idiot.
I know there's greatness in this novel, hiding somewhere in the details of its beautifully painted characters. But try as I might, it was simply too much.
It's like a large, filling, nutritious meal that is a little too hard to digest.
The novel is lengthy, and the pacing is so slow, that by the time it starts to pick up I'd already lost all interest.
I know I would enjoy it more if I read it differently. If I read it more slowly and paid more attention to its details, but like I said, it's hard to take it all in in this form.
But at the same time the only excuse I could give it is that it is a product of its time and environment. Because I know, and have experienced stories that are faster-paced and more entertaining, while maintaining a similar level of details.
It's also worth mentioning that despite how interesting and complex the characters are, I could not relate to any of them, I could only watch them through a glass wall, unable to be more invested, which made it harder for me to stay interested. It was a rather impersonal experience.
I keep contrasting The Idiot to another novel full of characters and details and allegories: One Hundred Years of Solitude. Despite having some things in common, one is my all time favorite novels, and the other is one of my most miserable reading experiences.
When I compare the two, I immediately understand why I feel so differently about them. I enjoyed 100 Years because:
- It was faster paced. Literally telling the story of ab entire family over a 100 years in fewer pages than The Idiot.
- It is the grand-daddy of magical-realism. And just that hint of magic is enough to make the novel enchanting. Meanwhile The Idiot is bleak in its realism.
- It juggles the focus between the bigger picture and the details as needed, and leaves some of its most beautiful elements just beneath the surface, so when you go digging deeper, you are justly rewarded. While The Idiot insists on pointing out its themes through long, sometimes exhausting scenes.
- The characters are more relatable and more varied, lacking the false nobility of the upper class which The Idiot focuses on. In fact, there is no such thing as upper class in 100 Years, and the characters are considered noble in a different way, through action rather than inheritance or fancy articulation.
I can't help but think this text would make for an excellent adaptation in a more accessible medium.
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I want to kill both of this God forsake women and every single one of this bullshited dickheads assholes who DARED to treat THE KING, THE GREAT MIKAEL like shit, DEATH TO ALL OF THEM
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This one has such a mesmerizing whirlwind of an opening. So many characters that fit in and breathe with so much life and detail right away. It's enough to forgive the middle bits that sag and the overlong Ippolit sections.
I think the ending will stick with me for a bit. Strange to feel the writing drop down into the register of horror all of sudden in the final moments, but it hits so well. Truly gutting.
I think the ending will stick with me for a bit. Strange to feel the writing drop down into the register of horror all of sudden in the final moments, but it hits so well. Truly gutting.
"Secondo me, uccidere perché si è ucciso rappresenta una punizione incomparabilmente più terribile dello stesso delitto commesso. Venire giustiziato in base ad un verdetto è molto più terribile che venire ucciso da briganti."
"Chi viene ucciso da un brigante, mettiamo di notte nel bosco o in qualche altro modo, continua indubbiamente a sperare di salvarsi fino all'ultimo istante di vita. Ci sono esempi di persone che, già con la gola tagliata, continuavano a sperare, cercavano di fuggire o chiedevano pietà. E qui invece ti viene tolta con assoluta certezza proprio quest'ultima speranza grazie alla quale morire è dieci volte più più facile. Su di te è stato pronunciato un verdetto, e nella certezza che a quel verdetto non potrai scampare sta proprio la sofferenza più terribile, la più spaventosa che ci sia al mondo. Prendete un soldato, mettetelo davanti a una bocca di cannone e sparate contro di lui, e lui continuerà pur sempre a sperare; ma leggete a quello stesso soldato una sentenza che lo condanna con certezza, e lui impazzirà o scoppierà a piangere. Chi è in grado di dire che la natura umana sia in grado di sopportare una cosa simile senza impazzire? A che serve una tortura così mostruosa, inutile, assurda? Può darsi che ci sia qualcuno a cui sia stata letta la sentenza di morte, gli abbiano fatto provare tutte le torture dell'attesa e alla fine gli abbiano detto: 'Va' pure, sei stato graziato'. Ecco, un uomo che avesse vissuto tutto ciò potrebbe raccontare cosa si prova. Anche Cristo ha parlato di quell'angoscia, di quella terribile sofferenza. No, non è permesso trattare così una persona umana!"
"Chi viene ucciso da un brigante, mettiamo di notte nel bosco o in qualche altro modo, continua indubbiamente a sperare di salvarsi fino all'ultimo istante di vita. Ci sono esempi di persone che, già con la gola tagliata, continuavano a sperare, cercavano di fuggire o chiedevano pietà. E qui invece ti viene tolta con assoluta certezza proprio quest'ultima speranza grazie alla quale morire è dieci volte più più facile. Su di te è stato pronunciato un verdetto, e nella certezza che a quel verdetto non potrai scampare sta proprio la sofferenza più terribile, la più spaventosa che ci sia al mondo. Prendete un soldato, mettetelo davanti a una bocca di cannone e sparate contro di lui, e lui continuerà pur sempre a sperare; ma leggete a quello stesso soldato una sentenza che lo condanna con certezza, e lui impazzirà o scoppierà a piangere. Chi è in grado di dire che la natura umana sia in grado di sopportare una cosa simile senza impazzire? A che serve una tortura così mostruosa, inutile, assurda? Può darsi che ci sia qualcuno a cui sia stata letta la sentenza di morte, gli abbiano fatto provare tutte le torture dell'attesa e alla fine gli abbiano detto: 'Va' pure, sei stato graziato'. Ecco, un uomo che avesse vissuto tutto ciò potrebbe raccontare cosa si prova. Anche Cristo ha parlato di quell'angoscia, di quella terribile sofferenza. No, non è permesso trattare così una persona umana!"
Dostoevsky has a gift for inhabiting his characters. They are fully human. They laugh, they cry, they blush, and they do things well as often as they make awful decisions.
The Idiot is no different here. The Prince is a very good man--almost unbelievably so--but he still makes his mistakes, and he is a marvel to the Russian society he returns to after years in Sweden. Many reviews call him Christ-like, but I'm not sure that's really the case. Christ could be a comparison for the Prince's good nature and compassion, but he is still human, and he is still flawed, and so Dostoevsky's letter is illuminating in that he seemed to base his character more on St. John the Baptist as opposed to Christ.
This novel is chaos. There are numerous plot lines, enough intrigue to make for a season of Game of Thrones, and a large cast of characters. Part of the point is, of course, chaos. Whether chaos or structured, we end up in a similar place. There's a thread of fatalism apparent form the novel's opening lines on a train, a guide for the novel's events.
Even the end may seem to be a bit surprising, and, in this way, The Idiot is an extremely contemporary novel, but Dostoevsky is examining how the customs of past and present collide, and the ways in which that can make for beauty as well as disaster.
But the goal here is to witness the disaster and to see how the world (and its inhabitants) will move forward, the same way those who witnessed Christ's death on the Cross could not have predicted his resurrection. Here, Dostoevsky is speaking about a conservative Russian ideal amidst chaos. Would a new Russia emerge and take over, or would the chaos of the present day ravage the past and continue on? I believe Dostoevsky had his faith in the emergence of a new culture and society based on conservative ideals, but how stable or tenuous it was (and is) is still up for debate.
The Idiot is no different here. The Prince is a very good man--almost unbelievably so--but he still makes his mistakes, and he is a marvel to the Russian society he returns to after years in Sweden. Many reviews call him Christ-like, but I'm not sure that's really the case. Christ could be a comparison for the Prince's good nature and compassion, but he is still human, and he is still flawed, and so Dostoevsky's letter is illuminating in that he seemed to base his character more on St. John the Baptist as opposed to Christ.
This novel is chaos. There are numerous plot lines, enough intrigue to make for a season of Game of Thrones, and a large cast of characters. Part of the point is, of course, chaos. Whether chaos or structured, we end up in a similar place. There's a thread of fatalism apparent form the novel's opening lines on a train, a guide for the novel's events.
Even the end may seem to be a bit surprising, and, in this way, The Idiot is an extremely contemporary novel, but Dostoevsky is examining how the customs of past and present collide, and the ways in which that can make for beauty as well as disaster.
But the goal here is to witness the disaster and to see how the world (and its inhabitants) will move forward, the same way those who witnessed Christ's death on the Cross could not have predicted his resurrection. Here, Dostoevsky is speaking about a conservative Russian ideal amidst chaos. Would a new Russia emerge and take over, or would the chaos of the present day ravage the past and continue on? I believe Dostoevsky had his faith in the emergence of a new culture and society based on conservative ideals, but how stable or tenuous it was (and is) is still up for debate.
