Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Personalmente me encanta la escritura de Dostoivski y en este libro no fue la excepción. La ambientación, la complejidad de los personajes y la crítica social junto con los dilemas éticos y morales, hacen que la historia trascienda y se sienta real. Junto con Ana Karenina de Leo Tolstoi, el Idiota de Dostoivski también nos muestra los personajes femeninos atados a la época de las costumbres y la opresión causantes de que parecieran siempre buscar la destrucción de sí mismas. El personaje principal, también muestra matices e incluso una última cuestión que queda abierta a la interpretación, fue víctima o sus acciones fueron mal intencionadas con una máscara de ingenuidad. La historia trágica de los personajes se queda contigo y por ello creo que es un libro muy completo que lo recomendaría sin dudar.
This book was really really good but I felt like too much of it when over my head to give it a rating because I did not pay attention in the first half. I’ve read C&P, poor folk, and house of the dead by him and they were all obviously phenomenal, but this was my first time in a while reading Russian lit and my mind sort of got pulled through the wringer.
I’ll come back to this later certainly.
I’ll come back to this later certainly.
A very enjoyable hefty novel, though lagging behind The Brothers Karamazov in terms of quicker pacing and story execution, in my opinion. But I highly recommend it.
emotional
inspiring
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
What happens when the ideal human being comes into the real world?
Dostoevsky centers The Idiot around this premise, introducing us to Prince Myshkin, his Christ-like main character. He had just returned from the sanatorium in Switzerland where he had been cured of epilepsy and "idiocy" so there is an open question right at the beginning of the book - how did he get in that situation? His only relation in St. Petersburg is the very distant Lizaveta Prokofyevna Yepanchin, the wife of General Yepanchin in whose house he stays. The family as a traditional center of patriarchal life back then becomes, instead, the locus of greed, falsehood, and contention. I really enjoyed the biblical motives which are present throughout the book, especially the character of Nastasya Filippovna - the fallen woman and her self-destructiveness. The ending of the book, somehow, brings us right back to the beginning. How did the world affect the prince? What was his effect on the world? The Christ we know performed miracles because of the faith of those around Him. Here, the world is much different and he can bring no miracles. On the contrary, he becomes "the fallen" as well.
Dostoevsky centers The Idiot around this premise, introducing us to Prince Myshkin, his Christ-like main character. He had just returned from the sanatorium in Switzerland where he had been cured of epilepsy and "idiocy" so there is an open question right at the beginning of the book - how did he get in that situation? His only relation in St. Petersburg is the very distant Lizaveta Prokofyevna Yepanchin, the wife of General Yepanchin in whose house he stays. The family as a traditional center of patriarchal life back then becomes, instead, the locus of greed, falsehood, and contention. I really enjoyed the biblical motives which are present throughout the book, especially the character of Nastasya Filippovna - the fallen woman and her self-destructiveness. The ending of the book, somehow, brings us right back to the beginning. How did the world affect the prince? What was his effect on the world? The Christ we know performed miracles because of the faith of those around Him. Here, the world is much different and he can bring no miracles. On the contrary, he becomes "the fallen" as well.
I have put off reviewing this book for 3 months as I have very mixed feelings about it. This was one of the most thought-provoking books I’ve read, however, as much as I enjoyed it, it is my least favourite of Dostoyevsky’s longer novels so far.
I found Myshkin’s character extremely unlikable. This feels ironic as I love Dostoyevsky’s more morally corrupt characters and Myshkin is a Christ-like figure, who is much more objectively ‘good’. What bothered me about Myshkin was his innate goodness, his strong 'essence of religious feeling.' He didn't strive to be moral, he simply embodied it. I appreciated the notion that religion is a feeling rather than a rigid set of rules, and Myshkin's intrinsic kindness was captivating. However, portraying a character as Christ-like strips them of the complexities and pitfalls that make Dostoyevsky's characters so intriguing. If I had felt a connection to Christ, maybe I would have enjoyed this portrayal more. But to me, this approach made it challenging to connect with Myshkin on a psychological level; he existed more as a symbolic figure than a psychologically motivated individual.
In isolation, he is a good person, but he does not live in isolation. His inherent morality is incompatible with the corruptness of the Russian middle/upper classes.Because of this, he ends up hurting people (e.g. Aglya). You can’t be kind and extend your sympathy to everyone. Dostoyevsky was clearly criticising Myshkin’s moral idealism, suggesting that no one can fully embody and live according to the teachings of Christ in a flawed human society.
Throughout the novel, intentions take precedence over actions. Dostoyevsky seems to be criticising the world now (in 1869) which perceives actions without thought of faith, suggesting that if you perceive the world in an objective and atheistic way, good and evil become relative and are only useful as far as they can serve a person. Dostoyevsky suggests that this moral relativism would lead to a society that becomes detached from moral foundations and risks descending into moral chaos and spiritual emptiness. Whilst criticising both moral relativism and moral idealism- where does this leave the atheistic reader? Or where does this lead a theistic reader?
If you believe in Christ, you may interpret this as a critique of modern society, highlighting that the issue lies not in Myshkin's moral idealness but in the rise of rationality. However, for atheists reading this book, the question arises: Where does this leave me? If you were to take Dostoyevsky’s message, society appears doomed because objective moral values must stem from faith and higher principles. Dostoyevsky acknowledges the innate nature of religious essence – some believe, others do not – and emphasises that trying to believe is not the same as true belief. Therefore, if you lack belief, if you cannot believe, and have embraced moral relativism due to a lack of faith, you find yourself in a predicament with nowhere to turn.
Although Dostoyevsky is very accommodating to his atheistic readers, offering insights without preaching, and presenting you with arguments and debates rather than sermons, this book may be a difficult read for some. Offering many questions and an impossible resolution, this book can leave you feeling a little overwhelmed and contemplative. However, reading this book ultimately helps you explore morality, faith, and the complexities of human nature through a very beautiful, albeit uneventful, story. Long story short this book hurt my feelings.
I found Myshkin’s character extremely unlikable. This feels ironic as I love Dostoyevsky’s more morally corrupt characters and Myshkin is a Christ-like figure, who is much more objectively ‘good’. What bothered me about Myshkin was his innate goodness, his strong 'essence of religious feeling.' He didn't strive to be moral, he simply embodied it. I appreciated the notion that religion is a feeling rather than a rigid set of rules, and Myshkin's intrinsic kindness was captivating. However, portraying a character as Christ-like strips them of the complexities and pitfalls that make Dostoyevsky's characters so intriguing. If I had felt a connection to Christ, maybe I would have enjoyed this portrayal more. But to me, this approach made it challenging to connect with Myshkin on a psychological level; he existed more as a symbolic figure than a psychologically motivated individual.
In isolation, he is a good person, but he does not live in isolation. His inherent morality is incompatible with the corruptness of the Russian middle/upper classes.Because of this, he ends up hurting people (e.g. Aglya). You can’t be kind and extend your sympathy to everyone. Dostoyevsky was clearly criticising Myshkin’s moral idealism, suggesting that no one can fully embody and live according to the teachings of Christ in a flawed human society.
Throughout the novel, intentions take precedence over actions. Dostoyevsky seems to be criticising the world now (in 1869) which perceives actions without thought of faith, suggesting that if you perceive the world in an objective and atheistic way, good and evil become relative and are only useful as far as they can serve a person. Dostoyevsky suggests that this moral relativism would lead to a society that becomes detached from moral foundations and risks descending into moral chaos and spiritual emptiness. Whilst criticising both moral relativism and moral idealism- where does this leave the atheistic reader? Or where does this lead a theistic reader?
If you believe in Christ, you may interpret this as a critique of modern society, highlighting that the issue lies not in Myshkin's moral idealness but in the rise of rationality. However, for atheists reading this book, the question arises: Where does this leave me? If you were to take Dostoyevsky’s message, society appears doomed because objective moral values must stem from faith and higher principles. Dostoyevsky acknowledges the innate nature of religious essence – some believe, others do not – and emphasises that trying to believe is not the same as true belief. Therefore, if you lack belief, if you cannot believe, and have embraced moral relativism due to a lack of faith, you find yourself in a predicament with nowhere to turn.
Although Dostoyevsky is very accommodating to his atheistic readers, offering insights without preaching, and presenting you with arguments and debates rather than sermons, this book may be a difficult read for some. Offering many questions and an impossible resolution, this book can leave you feeling a little overwhelmed and contemplative. However, reading this book ultimately helps you explore morality, faith, and the complexities of human nature through a very beautiful, albeit uneventful, story. Long story short this book hurt my feelings.
8.3/10
This might be the most Dostoevsky book I’ve yet to come across. Although I’ve only familiarized myself with 5 of his texts, this one seems to peer into his own psyche, analyzing and critiquing it morris than the rest (note I’ve yet to read Brothers Karamazov). To put it in a metaphor, if Crime and Punishment is his “Goodfellas” then The Idiot would be his “Taxi Driver.”
Mainly this has to do with the ideas presented and how they’re addressed. Crime and Punishment is largely about the weighty topics of guilt and redemption while told on a very tight and personal level, while The Idiot is about the simple concept of “fitting in” and is projected onto the layout of Russian society, more specifically its societal upper echelon. A big idea on a small scale vs. a smaller idea on a large scale.
There are many similarities one can draw to the comparison previously made between Dostoevsky and Scorsese and I’m sure anyone familiar with the works reference has already made most of them. However, there is one that I’d like to highlight that really hammers this home: redemption.
In Crime and Punishment, we get a very lukewarm ending for Raskolnikov where he faces retribution; legal, mental, and spiritual, for his actions. When we look back and ask ourselves, “is this fitting,” most would inwardly shrug and say, “I guess so,” akin to the audiences reaction to Henry Hill’s dismay after ratting and retiring to a normal civilian lifestyle.
While in the Idiot, we’re left with a Myshkin, who in his own eyes did all the right things yet was left as broken of a man as he was when we first heard his story and sickness. He tried to live by the moral compass that he pocketed in his soul, but that along with his invalid health and the reaction to his funny behaviors left him heading on a train back to Switzerland. This is reminiscent of Travis Bickle’s ending where he finds justice in his own eyes yet finds it hard to be at peace with himself or to earn social and romantic validation.
Now what’s the point of these comparisons to film? Because that’s what the driving point of the question this book poses. It all comes to a focal point in a chapter wherein Myshkin and Rogozhin comment on a Holbein painting of Jesus Christ freshly taken off a cross and laid in a tomb. It’s a rather bleak and frightening scene, one inducing claustrophobia, anxiety, and hopelessness. Rogozhin first comments on how it’s made him question, doubt, then lose his faith and then gets brought up again multiple times throughout as a mode of conversation surrounding the Russian soul and religion.
This leads to many discussions between Myshkin and other characters in the book such as Lebedyev and the “dignitary” Byelokonsky that span many pages and are full of profound and keen observations. As great as those are, the most impressive one is the conversation never had: can one who is truly and earnestly Christian get by in the world today, specifically a Russian one?
Dostoevsky’s answer to this, as one might guess from what I’ve said so far is no. Prince Myshkin serves as the Christian martyr of this story and boy does he take a beating. He gets tricked, manipulated, condescended, disgraced, trampled on, and practically thrown away by the world around him simply due to his naivety, ignorance, and his inability to be a man of action. Although regarded by those who deceive him as a smart man with a golden soul, he always seems out of the loop, a step behind, and a pawn in everyone else’s plan and not his own man. What Dostoevsky is saying here is something iterated in the Bible many times over, that the word of the Lord and the ways of the world do not equate and are not complementary.
Along with this, the idea of Christian perfection is also addressed and examined. Although Myshkin is presented to us as an innocent orthodox Christian, he is a man of some vice as he controversially had a relation with Nastasya Fillipovna which many deemed as his mistress and is largely pulled apart by his weakness for the fairer sex, namely by the former and for the middle daughter of the Epanchin family, Aglaia Ivanovna. Not only does this reaffirm Dostoevsky’s stance that Christian perfection is unattainable by man, but even the pursuit of that while living in the ways of the world, more specifically the opulent one of the higher class, one cannot do both of “serve two masters” as it were.
This brings us back to the painting. We have a defeated Myshkin who tried to live as God intended while still participating in the rather Godless circle of society and he was left as sick as he was in the beginning. He is essentially a social dead-man-walking whose decline and current state is like that of a deceased person who has been laid to rest, much like the Holbein depiction of the Christ. This leaves the Christian with a few options. Give it all up and wish for a fast and painless death, this is explored through Ippolit and his suicide attempt. One could continue and try to do the same, we can see this through the drunken Revelation interpreter, Lebedyev. Another option would be rejecting it all and embracing a lifestyle of lunatic degeneracy, as observed through Rogozhin and Nastasya. And then there’s the one we don’t know, the one that clings back to Christ and holds on to the mystery of faith. A key point left out by Dostoevsky and one I believe he did on purpose. As much as this book is intended for all to read, he gives this perspective as an alternative to the way of the world that takes you down kicking and screaming with it. The alternatives to faith presented are all less than ideal while choosing it does not clearly show wherein one will end up or how they will go about the journey.
That is the side of the “easy yoke” that Dostoevsky invites you to ponder during and after reading The Idiot, wether or not a submission to God will leave you better off is up to you to decide. The only help he gives is painting a picture of the alternatives which all are less than ideal in their own ways, essentially giving a much more expanded, romantic, tragic, Russian, engaging, and human take on Pascal’s wager.
Also, like most of Dostoevsky’s books, it has really good female characters.
This might be the most Dostoevsky book I’ve yet to come across. Although I’ve only familiarized myself with 5 of his texts, this one seems to peer into his own psyche, analyzing and critiquing it morris than the rest (note I’ve yet to read Brothers Karamazov). To put it in a metaphor, if Crime and Punishment is his “Goodfellas” then The Idiot would be his “Taxi Driver.”
Mainly this has to do with the ideas presented and how they’re addressed. Crime and Punishment is largely about the weighty topics of guilt and redemption while told on a very tight and personal level, while The Idiot is about the simple concept of “fitting in” and is projected onto the layout of Russian society, more specifically its societal upper echelon. A big idea on a small scale vs. a smaller idea on a large scale.
There are many similarities one can draw to the comparison previously made between Dostoevsky and Scorsese and I’m sure anyone familiar with the works reference has already made most of them. However, there is one that I’d like to highlight that really hammers this home: redemption.
In Crime and Punishment, we get a very lukewarm ending for Raskolnikov where he faces retribution; legal, mental, and spiritual, for his actions. When we look back and ask ourselves, “is this fitting,” most would inwardly shrug and say, “I guess so,” akin to the audiences reaction to Henry Hill’s dismay after ratting and retiring to a normal civilian lifestyle.
While in the Idiot, we’re left with a Myshkin, who in his own eyes did all the right things yet was left as broken of a man as he was when we first heard his story and sickness. He tried to live by the moral compass that he pocketed in his soul, but that along with his invalid health and the reaction to his funny behaviors left him heading on a train back to Switzerland. This is reminiscent of Travis Bickle’s ending where he finds justice in his own eyes yet finds it hard to be at peace with himself or to earn social and romantic validation.
Now what’s the point of these comparisons to film? Because that’s what the driving point of the question this book poses. It all comes to a focal point in a chapter wherein Myshkin and Rogozhin comment on a Holbein painting of Jesus Christ freshly taken off a cross and laid in a tomb. It’s a rather bleak and frightening scene, one inducing claustrophobia, anxiety, and hopelessness. Rogozhin first comments on how it’s made him question, doubt, then lose his faith and then gets brought up again multiple times throughout as a mode of conversation surrounding the Russian soul and religion.
This leads to many discussions between Myshkin and other characters in the book such as Lebedyev and the “dignitary” Byelokonsky that span many pages and are full of profound and keen observations. As great as those are, the most impressive one is the conversation never had: can one who is truly and earnestly Christian get by in the world today, specifically a Russian one?
Dostoevsky’s answer to this, as one might guess from what I’ve said so far is no. Prince Myshkin serves as the Christian martyr of this story and boy does he take a beating. He gets tricked, manipulated, condescended, disgraced, trampled on, and practically thrown away by the world around him simply due to his naivety, ignorance, and his inability to be a man of action. Although regarded by those who deceive him as a smart man with a golden soul, he always seems out of the loop, a step behind, and a pawn in everyone else’s plan and not his own man. What Dostoevsky is saying here is something iterated in the Bible many times over, that the word of the Lord and the ways of the world do not equate and are not complementary.
Along with this, the idea of Christian perfection is also addressed and examined. Although Myshkin is presented to us as an innocent orthodox Christian, he is a man of some vice as he controversially had a relation with Nastasya Fillipovna which many deemed as his mistress and is largely pulled apart by his weakness for the fairer sex, namely by the former and for the middle daughter of the Epanchin family, Aglaia Ivanovna. Not only does this reaffirm Dostoevsky’s stance that Christian perfection is unattainable by man, but even the pursuit of that while living in the ways of the world, more specifically the opulent one of the higher class, one cannot do both of “serve two masters” as it were.
This brings us back to the painting. We have a defeated Myshkin who tried to live as God intended while still participating in the rather Godless circle of society and he was left as sick as he was in the beginning. He is essentially a social dead-man-walking whose decline and current state is like that of a deceased person who has been laid to rest, much like the Holbein depiction of the Christ. This leaves the Christian with a few options. Give it all up and wish for a fast and painless death, this is explored through Ippolit and his suicide attempt. One could continue and try to do the same, we can see this through the drunken Revelation interpreter, Lebedyev. Another option would be rejecting it all and embracing a lifestyle of lunatic degeneracy, as observed through Rogozhin and Nastasya. And then there’s the one we don’t know, the one that clings back to Christ and holds on to the mystery of faith. A key point left out by Dostoevsky and one I believe he did on purpose. As much as this book is intended for all to read, he gives this perspective as an alternative to the way of the world that takes you down kicking and screaming with it. The alternatives to faith presented are all less than ideal while choosing it does not clearly show wherein one will end up or how they will go about the journey.
That is the side of the “easy yoke” that Dostoevsky invites you to ponder during and after reading The Idiot, wether or not a submission to God will leave you better off is up to you to decide. The only help he gives is painting a picture of the alternatives which all are less than ideal in their own ways, essentially giving a much more expanded, romantic, tragic, Russian, engaging, and human take on Pascal’s wager.
Also, like most of Dostoevsky’s books, it has really good female characters.
Really enjoyed the story. Very frustrated and disappointed with audible changing the narrator part way through.