Scan barcode
osamatheauthor's review against another edition
5.0
It was the very first time I read a novel related to psychological aspects and philosophy like this, and the way Dostoevsky marked his profound writing style and its depth over me. I can say that The Idiot has been one of my favorite novels. Solid 4.5/5!
Some of the many learned points from my reading of this novel are:
Suffering is conclusive.
Not every shining element represents true beauty.
Only being conscious can save you.
Resentment would not always take you towards hating. Somewhat, it clarifies visions.
The imagination is more scary than achieving reality.
The more you try to forget it, the more you will remember it.
Accepting differences is not easy. It's almost an everyday struggle.
Your good heart will make you win, eventually.
Only say when the worth of your words is counted.
Will your grief matter if your happiness surpasses the scale?
And here is one of my favorite quotes from the book:
"And why, too, on waking up and fully returning to reality, do you feel almost every time, and sometimes with extraordinary intensity, that you have left something unexplained behind with the dream?"
Some of the many learned points from my reading of this novel are:
Suffering is conclusive.
Not every shining element represents true beauty.
Only being conscious can save you.
Resentment would not always take you towards hating. Somewhat, it clarifies visions.
The imagination is more scary than achieving reality.
The more you try to forget it, the more you will remember it.
Accepting differences is not easy. It's almost an everyday struggle.
Your good heart will make you win, eventually.
Only say when the worth of your words is counted.
Will your grief matter if your happiness surpasses the scale?
And here is one of my favorite quotes from the book:
"And why, too, on waking up and fully returning to reality, do you feel almost every time, and sometimes with extraordinary intensity, that you have left something unexplained behind with the dream?"
zander_egervari's review against another edition
5.0
Throughout the book the Prince is frequently likened to an idiot, often to his face, because of his simpleheartedness and naivety. Despite this, Myshkin is quick to forgive and his supernatural sense of empathy allows him to make extraordinarily intelligent observations about the world and the people in it. Even though this empathy can be considered his greatest strength, it also turns out to be his greatest weakness in the end. The empathy he felt for Nastasya caused him to lose his mind upon seeing her corpse and his unconditional compassion did not prevent Aglaya and most of his friends from leaving him after the scandal. Considering his actions it is not hard to see the portrayal of Christ in the way Myshkin treats others as well as in his views on society and religion.
"The Idiot" was Dostoevsky's favorite of his works and this becomes apparent once the reader sees how there is some of Dostoevsky himself within the pages. For example, Myshkin's epileptic condition, the implications of a canceled execution, and the display of overt Christian values, to name a few commonalities, are all direct projections of the author. Unfortunately due to circumstances, the novel was extremely rushed and resultantly incoherent at times. Dostoevsky is quoted saying "Much in the novel was written hurriedly, much is too diffuse and did not turn out well, but some of it did turn out well. I do not stand behind the novel, but I do stand behind the idea." This leads me to consider "The Idiot" as an incomplete piece and am remised to think of what it could have been. Nonetheless I personally believe the book to be a masterpiece as it is. The characters felt so real that I frequently felt as if I were sitting there beside them, experiencing their insightful loquacity at critical moments for myself.
Regardless of the book's unfortunate shortcomings I would recommend it to anyone up for a challenging but fulfilling read.
"The Idiot" was Dostoevsky's favorite of his works and this becomes apparent once the reader sees how there is some of Dostoevsky himself within the pages. For example, Myshkin's epileptic condition, the implications of a canceled execution, and the display of overt Christian values, to name a few commonalities, are all direct projections of the author. Unfortunately due to circumstances, the novel was extremely rushed and resultantly incoherent at times. Dostoevsky is quoted saying "Much in the novel was written hurriedly, much is too diffuse and did not turn out well, but some of it did turn out well. I do not stand behind the novel, but I do stand behind the idea." This leads me to consider "The Idiot" as an incomplete piece and am remised to think of what it could have been. Nonetheless I personally believe the book to be a masterpiece as it is. The characters felt so real that I frequently felt as if I were sitting there beside them, experiencing their insightful loquacity at critical moments for myself.
Regardless of the book's unfortunate shortcomings I would recommend it to anyone up for a challenging but fulfilling read.
mollybonovskyanderson's review against another edition
4.0
This was a much more difficult, and unfortunately less enjoyable read for me than Crime and Punishment (and everything else pales against The Brothers Karamazov), but that said, it's still a fine work by one of my favorite writers.
I'd like to review it blind, that is, not reading other reviews first or diving into interpretations or explanations, and instead go at it purely from my impressions. Prince Myshkin is undoubtedly NOT an idiot, rather, a man who thinks and speaks freely, albeit insecurely, his innermost thoughts and his absolute truth. Of course he's received as an idiot amongst the pseudo-aristocratic Epanchins and others, because he doesn't adhere smoothly to their social graces and communication style. It took me until the very end, when Lev Nikolaivich expresses his love for both Aglaya Epanchin and Nastasya Filipovna, to really understand him; that his feelings don't make sense, and so his actions are easier to see as a result of those feelings, rather than some plan or greater intent. Aglaya, however, confuses the heck out of me because she seems to dote on the prince, then laugh in his face, send him a hedgehog, and then laugh in his face again. If she really did love him, which I'm still not sure of, she had an absolutely terrible way of showing it. It was frustrating watching the prince agonize over her, and Nastasya, who was equally horrid to him. He seemed to just take everything and, rather than stand up to these women who abused his emotions, but again, his confession to Evegeny Pavlovich towards the end, of loving both women, and seeing nothing wrong with marrying one for no other reason other than to placate her, because he was frightened of her, made his previous behavior easier to understand.
Ultimately I felt sorry for the prince, and for Rogozhin as well, who, as unlikable as he was throughout the book, was also clearly driven mad. The most interesting characters for my money were Ippolit and Elizaveta Prokovyena, rather than the prince himself.
The murder of Nastasya at Rogozhin's hands was shocking, and it was utterly surprising that the prince didn't have a stronger reaction at the outset.
This story would have been stronger for me if Dostoevsky had not left what I consider big chunks of time out, for instance, Lev Nikolaivich's time with Nastasya, when she first ran away from Rogozhin to him (I felt like pages were missing! Shouldn't that time have been integral to explaining and illustrating Nastasya's growing madness?), and instead, dwelt so much on the story of Burdovsky's attempted claim to the prince's inheritance, although that sub-plot at least introduce the raw and complicated character of Ippolit, who again, was far more interesting than any of the "main" characters.
I'd like to review it blind, that is, not reading other reviews first or diving into interpretations or explanations, and instead go at it purely from my impressions. Prince Myshkin is undoubtedly NOT an idiot, rather, a man who thinks and speaks freely, albeit insecurely, his innermost thoughts and his absolute truth. Of course he's received as an idiot amongst the pseudo-aristocratic Epanchins and others, because he doesn't adhere smoothly to their social graces and communication style. It took me until the very end, when Lev Nikolaivich expresses his love for both Aglaya Epanchin and Nastasya Filipovna, to really understand him; that his feelings don't make sense, and so his actions are easier to see as a result of those feelings, rather than some plan or greater intent. Aglaya, however, confuses the heck out of me because she seems to dote on the prince, then laugh in his face, send him a hedgehog, and then laugh in his face again. If she really did love him, which I'm still not sure of, she had an absolutely terrible way of showing it. It was frustrating watching the prince agonize over her, and Nastasya, who was equally horrid to him. He seemed to just take everything and, rather than stand up to these women who abused his emotions, but again, his confession to Evegeny Pavlovich towards the end, of loving both women, and seeing nothing wrong with marrying one for no other reason other than to placate her, because he was frightened of her, made his previous behavior easier to understand.
Ultimately I felt sorry for the prince, and for Rogozhin as well, who, as unlikable as he was throughout the book, was also clearly driven mad. The most interesting characters for my money were Ippolit and Elizaveta Prokovyena, rather than the prince himself.
The murder of Nastasya at Rogozhin's hands was shocking, and it was utterly surprising that the prince didn't have a stronger reaction at the outset.
This story would have been stronger for me if Dostoevsky had not left what I consider big chunks of time out, for instance, Lev Nikolaivich's time with Nastasya, when she first ran away from Rogozhin to him (I felt like pages were missing! Shouldn't that time have been integral to explaining and illustrating Nastasya's growing madness?), and instead, dwelt so much on the story of Burdovsky's attempted claim to the prince's inheritance, although that sub-plot at least introduce the raw and complicated character of Ippolit, who again, was far more interesting than any of the "main" characters.
maur_damar's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-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
5.0
stingra10's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
alabhyajindal's review against another edition
1.0
How can all the characters in a book be so unlikable. Prince with his politeness in situations where the opposite is needed. The base treatment of Prince by Agalya, of Rogozhin by Natasya, it was just unbearable. And what's up with the mood swings of both Agalya and Natasya.
The only thing which kept me going towards the later part of the book was the anticipation of a murder, which is mentioned on the backside of the cover. I was hoping for a murder of Agalya or Ippolit. Agalya especially, given her despicable behaviour. I had something very dramatic in mind, like someone losing their mind and going on a rampage. The way Natasya's death was described (or wasn't) came as a big disappointment.
But I must say I felt very sad for the Prince, Rogozhin and Natasya, at the end of the book. I felt that all of them suffered a lot in their lives, because of their personal characteristics, something which was out of their control.
The only thing which I liked and found funny was Lebedev's verbose way of speaking, which is more pronounced in the second half of the book when the Prince begins to live in his Dacha.
The Idiot is an extremely boring book in conclusion and I feel I have wasted my time reading it.
The only thing which kept me going towards the later part of the book was the anticipation of a murder, which is mentioned on the backside of the cover. I was hoping for a murder of Agalya or Ippolit. Agalya especially, given her despicable behaviour. I had something very dramatic in mind, like someone losing their mind and going on a rampage. The way Natasya's death was described (or wasn't) came as a big disappointment.
But I must say I felt very sad for the Prince, Rogozhin and Natasya, at the end of the book. I felt that all of them suffered a lot in their lives, because of their personal characteristics, something which was out of their control.
The only thing which I liked and found funny was Lebedev's verbose way of speaking, which is more pronounced in the second half of the book when the Prince begins to live in his Dacha.
The Idiot is an extremely boring book in conclusion and I feel I have wasted my time reading it.
bdt96000's review against another edition
funny
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Having read and adored Brother Karamazov, Crime and Punishment and Notes from Underground, I was a little bit underwhelmed by The Idiot. Some great parts of course, but a lot slower and I found it lacking in moments of deep reflection of the psyche that I loved so much in his other work.