Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
All these different types of love: love as sacrifice, love as pity, as jealousy. The book stays with you for a long time after. It revolves also some deep philosophical topics on whether it is worth it and possible to stay pure and kind in such an absurd and cruel world. The last scene is HAUNTING.
It's incredibly difficult to write a proper Christ figure, and Myshkin's kind of slippery characterization is a good example of that. I don't know how telling it is that I found Natasya Filippovna a far more interesting and exciting character, but I was far more invested in whatever she had going on than Myshkin. The Prince is noble and good-hearted, but his "holy fool" qualities regularly result in disaster for himself and the people around him. His Christ-like nature appears on the whole more harmful than helpful, bringing out people's worst more often than their best. Towards the end it felt like perhaps things were culminating at last and that Myshkin's light would at last refract upon his desolate world, but that's not what we get. I guess I kept expecting it to turn towards hopeful repentance and restoration, but it simply continues to fall into the darkness of the world the story inhabits.
In a lot of ways, I was expecting The Brothers Karamazov. Alyosha feels like a clear development of the ideas present in Myshkin (and the same could be said of Natasya for Katerina, Kolya and Ippolit for Ilyusha, and so on.), but where Alyosha feels like he's having some effect in the story and the characters around him, Myshkin largely serves as a mirror for everyone's cruelty. I'm just not that attached to such a passive character, and maybe I'm not supposed to be? I kept waiting for the philosophical richness of The Brothers Karamazov, and though it appears in flashes, it's never quite the focus here. Dostoyevsky rarely enters the minds of the supporting cast with that same force. Myshkin doesn't seem to stand for anything, he wavers on nearly every issue and is desperate to please. He doesn't read as Christ-like so much as he reads as entirely devoid of self. The "powerful" ending didn't really move me because it felt so cerebral and disconnected from Myshkin's actions. But maybe that's part of it, too. These almost elemental forces of innocence, evil, and tragic failure crashing together in a room.
I'm kind of figuring out this book as I write this review. Looking at the whole, I think I can see what Dostoyevsky was doing, and I do respect it. It's much more tragic than I was expecting when I started, like opening up Romeo and Juliet but expecting Much Ado About Nothing. I don't think it's my favourite of Dostoyevsky's works, but it's one I'm going to have to continue chewing on.
In a lot of ways, I was expecting The Brothers Karamazov. Alyosha feels like a clear development of the ideas present in Myshkin (and the same could be said of Natasya for Katerina, Kolya and Ippolit for Ilyusha, and so on.), but where Alyosha feels like he's having some effect in the story and the characters around him, Myshkin largely serves as a mirror for everyone's cruelty. I'm just not that attached to such a passive character, and maybe I'm not supposed to be? I kept waiting for the philosophical richness of The Brothers Karamazov, and though it appears in flashes, it's never quite the focus here. Dostoyevsky rarely enters the minds of the supporting cast with that same force. Myshkin doesn't seem to stand for anything, he wavers on nearly every issue and is desperate to please. He doesn't read as Christ-like so much as he reads as entirely devoid of self. The "powerful" ending didn't really move me because it felt so cerebral and disconnected from Myshkin's actions. But maybe that's part of it, too. These almost elemental forces of innocence, evil, and tragic failure crashing together in a room.
I'm kind of figuring out this book as I write this review. Looking at the whole, I think I can see what Dostoyevsky was doing, and I do respect it. It's much more tragic than I was expecting when I started, like opening up Romeo and Juliet but expecting Much Ado About Nothing. I don't think it's my favourite of Dostoyevsky's works, but it's one I'm going to have to continue chewing on.
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I don't even know what to say about this. But my first sentiment upon finishing it was: "poor idiot"
Myshkin comes back to Russia after years spent in a treatment facility in Switzerland. He is too good for this world. Noble to a fault and willing to forgive anything to anyone. Hence why everyone considers him an idiot.
The character development is the best part of this book. Yes, Myshkin is an idiot being so trusting and kind, but you can't help but love him as a character, and of course as with any good people in this world, bad things tend to happen to him.
He tries to save the poor fallen Nastasia - who is batshit crazy for lack of a better expression and that ends up being in his undoing. In his attempt to rescue her, he kind of loses himself.
The Epanchins are a very realistic family, and I enjoyed their family dynamic very much, especially the antics of the matriarch. Aglaia was one hell of an annoying character, but also very very real.
Besides the main plot - which actually is probably the Idiot himself, and his struggle against the real world, all the subplots of the different characters gave the book a soul - not to sound too posh, but I think that's the best word to use.
It was hefty reading - but I really enjoyed it in the end.
Myshkin comes back to Russia after years spent in a treatment facility in Switzerland. He is too good for this world. Noble to a fault and willing to forgive anything to anyone. Hence why everyone considers him an idiot.
The character development is the best part of this book. Yes, Myshkin is an idiot being so trusting and kind, but you can't help but love him as a character, and of course as with any good people in this world, bad things tend to happen to him.
He tries to save the poor fallen Nastasia - who is batshit crazy for lack of a better expression and that ends up being in his undoing. In his attempt to rescue her, he kind of loses himself.
The Epanchins are a very realistic family, and I enjoyed their family dynamic very much, especially the antics of the matriarch. Aglaia was one hell of an annoying character, but also very very real.
Besides the main plot - which actually is probably the Idiot himself, and his struggle against the real world, all the subplots of the different characters gave the book a soul - not to sound too posh, but I think that's the best word to use.
It was hefty reading - but I really enjoyed it in the end.
funny
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
emotional
sad
tense
slow-paced
"هناك لحظات يريد فيها المرء أن يكون بقربه صديق."
للحكاية بقية...
للحكاية بقية...