Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
In short, too much romance and not enough death. Actually, some of the frivolity of the female characters especially sort of reminded me of Jane Austen, who I feel is an earlier/predecessor of wretches like Danielle Steele.
In any case, if we were to look at the way Dostoevsky writes these women, we would think they were pious, noncommittal, mentally ill, self serving, spoiled, with no sense of grasp on how to conduct themselves properly. The men are more of a varied bunch on the whole, with the intoxicated general to the well meaning prince who is truly no idiot (he's an intelligent epileptic).
Also, my version of the novel has been translated by Constance Garnett. I know there are fierce debates amongst fans of Dostoevsky about who is the best translator (I seriously think some of them meet in the night over intense chess games to verbally assault eachother over whose translation is superior.) In my opinion, Garnett does well to translate all of the French terms and phrases that are used, the familiarizations in terms of referencing people with different friendly versions of you and their names, and explains what the Russian words that don't translate exactly mean. At the same time, it doesn't seem as poetic as it may have been written in some places and it gets entirely confusing when there are two separate princes and they all have about ten surnames and full names. There are points in the novel when just "the prince" is the reference point but you won't know which prince is being referred to or is speaking for an entire long winded paragraph at least. To me, that just isn't a recommended way of translating and it should be clarified sooner.
The novel's strengths by and large lie within the philosophical discussions about class and politics as well as capital punishment. In comparison, the love triangle aspect might make the book more accessible to the average reader but greatly lessens the impact of these points. I'd love to read a long essay on these subjects without any female characters involved because, the way Dostoevsky has written these few ladies, I wouldn't care to ever know them.
In any case, if we were to look at the way Dostoevsky writes these women, we would think they were pious, noncommittal, mentally ill, self serving, spoiled, with no sense of grasp on how to conduct themselves properly. The men are more of a varied bunch on the whole, with the intoxicated general to the well meaning prince who is truly no idiot (he's an intelligent epileptic).
Also, my version of the novel has been translated by Constance Garnett. I know there are fierce debates amongst fans of Dostoevsky about who is the best translator (I seriously think some of them meet in the night over intense chess games to verbally assault eachother over whose translation is superior.) In my opinion, Garnett does well to translate all of the French terms and phrases that are used, the familiarizations in terms of referencing people with different friendly versions of you and their names, and explains what the Russian words that don't translate exactly mean. At the same time, it doesn't seem as poetic as it may have been written in some places and it gets entirely confusing when there are two separate princes and they all have about ten surnames and full names. There are points in the novel when just "the prince" is the reference point but you won't know which prince is being referred to or is speaking for an entire long winded paragraph at least. To me, that just isn't a recommended way of translating and it should be clarified sooner.
The novel's strengths by and large lie within the philosophical discussions about class and politics as well as capital punishment. In comparison, the love triangle aspect might make the book more accessible to the average reader but greatly lessens the impact of these points. I'd love to read a long essay on these subjects without any female characters involved because, the way Dostoevsky has written these few ladies, I wouldn't care to ever know them.
Prince Myshkin arrives to St. Petersburg as a naive, full of life fellow. It turns out that he is quite unable to survive in the high society of the Russian metropole. The first day of the book is the most enjoyable to read. The book unfolds in the one day described so that the prince already is a complex love relationship with Nastasya Filipovna by the end of the very first day he is staying in St.Petersburg. Then Myshkin falls in love with another woman, Aglaya Yepanchina. She is a daughter of a distant relative of prince Myshkin. Eventually the story takes twists and turns that are quite a torment to read.
It is widely perceived that Dostoyevsky used many elements of his own life in creating the characters for this story. (F.e he had a lover that quite resembled the character of Nastasya filipovna.) Such notions always make a book more interesting to read.
The middle part of the book is quite philosophical and promoting russian patriotism and deep religiousness, themes that Dostoyevsky likes to discuss. Towards the end I was in pain to see how prince Myshkin was shattered slowly but surely into bits and pieces, perhaps suggesting that true virtue does not survive in the real world.
It is widely perceived that Dostoyevsky used many elements of his own life in creating the characters for this story. (F.e he had a lover that quite resembled the character of Nastasya filipovna.) Such notions always make a book more interesting to read.
The middle part of the book is quite philosophical and promoting russian patriotism and deep religiousness, themes that Dostoyevsky likes to discuss. Towards the end I was in pain to see how prince Myshkin was shattered slowly but surely into bits and pieces, perhaps suggesting that true virtue does not survive in the real world.
funny
lighthearted
relaxing
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
challenging
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
4 stars
I’ve been wanting to get more into russian literature for a while and picked this up on a whim, I’m not entirely sure if I should’ve began Dostoevsky’s bibliography with this book or not, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. The prose is everything I was hoping it would be, and for a book that was written over 150 years ago (and in a different language) it’s surprisingly easy to follow, as well as engaging.
There’s really nothing I can say about this novel that hasn’t already been said. The themes are a bit heavy handed (in my opinion) but apt and important, nonetheless. The secondary and tertiary characters are wildly fascinating. This definitely one I’d like to return to, to really understand complexities of the relationships/thematic elements even more.
I’ve been wanting to get more into russian literature for a while and picked this up on a whim, I’m not entirely sure if I should’ve began Dostoevsky’s bibliography with this book or not, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. The prose is everything I was hoping it would be, and for a book that was written over 150 years ago (and in a different language) it’s surprisingly easy to follow, as well as engaging.
There’s really nothing I can say about this novel that hasn’t already been said. The themes are a bit heavy handed (in my opinion) but apt and important, nonetheless. The secondary and tertiary characters are wildly fascinating. This definitely one I’d like to return to, to really understand complexities of the relationships/thematic elements even more.
I love Dostoevsky but this book drove me nuts and was hard to finish. A good idea but both tedious and over the top execution.
lighthearted
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
es war zwischendurch leider sehr langweilig und auch repetitive aber im grunde genommen ist es genial geschrieben mit einer guten story die besonders im 4 teil(der auch der beste ist) sogar spannend sein kann und mich echt gepackt hat
Difficile scrivere una recensione di un simile testo. Ho appena terminato di leggerlo e ho impressioni contrastanti. Da un lato sono rimasto assolutamente affascinato dai personaggi che si susseguono nel corso di oltre 800 pagine. Una "full immersion" nella cultura e psicologia russa. Puo' essere difficile non perdersi nella molteplicita' personaggi citati a volte per nome, altre per patronomico o per titolo.
L'impressione e' che il volume sia stato scritto a varie velocita'. Vi sono parti in cui l'autore si perde letteralmente in infiniti dettagli quasi a voler riempire piu' pagine possibile (caso non del tutto improbabile considerato che "l'idiota" venne pubblicato a puntate su un periodico dell'epoca). Altre parti del volume, in particolare alla fine, descrivono situazioni e personaggi con una velocita' forse eccessiva, quasi a voler chiudere in breve il volume. Forse questa e' semplicemente l'impressione di un lettore (io) che si e' affezionato al mondo e ai personaggi del romanzo e teme di perderli con la fine della lettura.
L'impressione e' che il volume sia stato scritto a varie velocita'. Vi sono parti in cui l'autore si perde letteralmente in infiniti dettagli quasi a voler riempire piu' pagine possibile (caso non del tutto improbabile considerato che "l'idiota" venne pubblicato a puntate su un periodico dell'epoca). Altre parti del volume, in particolare alla fine, descrivono situazioni e personaggi con una velocita' forse eccessiva, quasi a voler chiudere in breve il volume. Forse questa e' semplicemente l'impressione di un lettore (io) che si e' affezionato al mondo e ai personaggi del romanzo e teme di perderli con la fine della lettura.