Scan barcode
bia4627's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
cwpipes9's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
loyaultemelie's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
I honestly have no idea what to think of this book
I should preface this review by saying I definitely did not have the most optimal reading experience of the Idiot. I started it, left off 60 pages in, restarted it during a frankly rough period of my life, and then took months to complete because of busyness. So, a lot of the cohesion of the book sort of flew out the window, making it appear more haphazard and disjointed to me than I think it is - though I do think the problem still stands.
So what are my thoughts? I think the A plot - the relationship between Lev Nikolaevich, Rogozhin, and Nastasya Filippovna - is incredibly strong, incredibly nuanced, incredibly well written. The end of this book genuinely floored me, and I wish we'd seen more of Nastasya Filippovna because she is an incredibly complex and tortured character. The sort of character the Dostoevsky writes well. She's probably the most complex of Dostoevsky's women that I've read so far.
However this is tempered by the fact that the B plot - the plot with the Epanchins - dominates the middle of the novel. And, to be frank, I didn't really 'get,' these parts as much. More specifically, I really did not understand Aglaya Ivanovna at all. In fact I rather disliked her. I understand her character motivation, and in fact I don't think the motivations were a bad foundation for a character at all. But the way that she just consistently laughs at Lev Nikolaevich and torments him makes it very difficult to then feel that she truly loves him. Loves him to the extent that is painted at the end of the novel. I just can't buy it. I know that love makes people act ridiculous - believe me I know - but when it comes to novels I feel you should at least get a sense that Aglaya even enjoys being around the person she's in love with. Does she even like Myshkin? I'm still not convinced. And this made all the scenes between her and Myshkin incredibly irritating to read. It just dragged on and on and all I could think was that everyone was going in circles, that I'd already read this before, and that I felt bad for Myshkin. This was really what soured the book for me.
But again, this book has moments of genius writing, and everything else in the book was also quite compelling. I was especially interested by Ippolit Terentyev, and the parallels between him and Myshkin. The scene where he reads his letter was one of the best of the novel. I also enjoyed Ganya and Varya more than I thought I would originally, and I liked that Dostoevsky owns up to their ordinariness and talks about how they both react to it.
Myshkin was also a fascinating character to me because I found myself at times infantilizing him in the way that the characters wrongly did. If he is Christ-like, I thought, then why does he lie to people at times, feel angry, and become involved in intrigue? But I think the Christ-like part of him is his incredibly capacity to forgive - as well as the honest way he sees the world. While reading this book I thought of the Tarkovsky film (yes I am a snob) Andrei Rublev, and the scene where I believe Andrei says "If Jesus was alive they'd crucify him again." I think it's very apt as to the way that people react to Myshkin. Though I don't really have a conclusion to my thoughts about him yet. We shall see.
So, in conclusion, a bunch of conflicting thoughts. Some wonderful characters and moments ultimately bogged down by tedium. Perhaps I don't get it, but I hope that upon reread I will - especially since I will reread it in the original next time. Or, I probably will. I think for now I am content to let the Idiot go and move on to the next Dostoevsky. But, as always, I could not regret the read.
I should preface this review by saying I definitely did not have the most optimal reading experience of the Idiot. I started it, left off 60 pages in, restarted it during a frankly rough period of my life, and then took months to complete because of busyness. So, a lot of the cohesion of the book sort of flew out the window, making it appear more haphazard and disjointed to me than I think it is - though I do think the problem still stands.
So what are my thoughts? I think the A plot - the relationship between Lev Nikolaevich, Rogozhin, and Nastasya Filippovna - is incredibly strong, incredibly nuanced, incredibly well written. The end of this book genuinely floored me, and I wish we'd seen more of Nastasya Filippovna because she is an incredibly complex and tortured character. The sort of character the Dostoevsky writes well. She's probably the most complex of Dostoevsky's women that I've read so far.
However this is tempered by the fact that the B plot - the plot with the Epanchins - dominates the middle of the novel. And, to be frank, I didn't really 'get,' these parts as much. More specifically, I really did not understand Aglaya Ivanovna at all. In fact I rather disliked her. I understand her character motivation, and in fact I don't think the motivations were a bad foundation for a character at all. But the way that she just consistently laughs at Lev Nikolaevich and torments him makes it very difficult to then feel that she truly loves him. Loves him to the extent that is painted at the end of the novel. I just can't buy it. I know that love makes people act ridiculous - believe me I know - but when it comes to novels I feel you should at least get a sense that Aglaya even enjoys being around the person she's in love with. Does she even like Myshkin? I'm still not convinced. And this made all the scenes between her and Myshkin incredibly irritating to read. It just dragged on and on and all I could think was that everyone was going in circles, that I'd already read this before, and that I felt bad for Myshkin. This was really what soured the book for me.
But again, this book has moments of genius writing, and everything else in the book was also quite compelling. I was especially interested by Ippolit Terentyev, and the parallels between him and Myshkin. The scene where he reads his letter was one of the best of the novel. I also enjoyed Ganya and Varya more than I thought I would originally, and I liked that Dostoevsky owns up to their ordinariness and talks about how they both react to it.
Myshkin was also a fascinating character to me because I found myself at times infantilizing him in the way that the characters wrongly did. If he is Christ-like, I thought, then why does he lie to people at times, feel angry, and become involved in intrigue? But I think the Christ-like part of him is his incredibly capacity to forgive - as well as the honest way he sees the world. While reading this book I thought of the Tarkovsky film (yes I am a snob) Andrei Rublev, and the scene where I believe Andrei says "If Jesus was alive they'd crucify him again." I think it's very apt as to the way that people react to Myshkin. Though I don't really have a conclusion to my thoughts about him yet. We shall see.
So, in conclusion, a bunch of conflicting thoughts. Some wonderful characters and moments ultimately bogged down by tedium. Perhaps I don't get it, but I hope that upon reread I will - especially since I will reread it in the original next time. Or, I probably will. I think for now I am content to let the Idiot go and move on to the next Dostoevsky. But, as always, I could not regret the read.
patriciadeoliveira's review against another edition
4.0
The book is interesting and has an engaging story. As every Russian, Dostoyevsky mixture theories and themes of Russian religious thought with evocative scenes and memorable dialogues. And obviously the theme of nihilism is present.
We all hope for an interesting crime, narrated in a special way and that would affect the whole story, but, in the book the crime is only the outcome - even if it is narrated ina way that only Dostoevsky could do it.It is a very delightful novel, and we can see a different Dostoyevsky.
We all hope for an interesting crime, narrated in a special way and that would affect the whole story, but, in the book the crime is only the outcome - even if it is narrated ina way that only Dostoevsky could do it.It is a very delightful novel, and we can see a different Dostoyevsky.
xinquo's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
4.75
cathik's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
5.0
The tragedy of being too good
An ideal idiot
Most of my favorite characters are either pure evil or complex anti-hero type; the stereotype Mr. Goody-two-shoes has never appealed to me; however Prince Muishkin, the idiot in the novel, is now going to be an exception.
He has suffered from idiocy due to epilepsy (FD too suffered from epilepsy attacks) all his childhood and early youth. Perhaps it was due to this idiocy that he has not adopted the common sense – the ‘normal’ way of looking at the world which is formed by slow corruption of our sense of compassion on pretext of what is called self-defense in a cruel world.
P. is full of compassion – which is very clear from stories he tells (the stories you tell, tell a lot about yourself.) His goodness (unlike Evegeine’s calculated goodness and Ptitson who allows himself only small evils) makes him indifferent to harm being done to himself if it means happiness of someone else. If you try to insult or hurt him; he would feel sorry for circumstances that made you do so; and let you cheat him. It is not so much that he doesn't notice or can't defend the harm done to himself but rather he prefers to suffer himself rather than bring on others - even if others are sinister in their ways.
He has no sense of social class - he could talk in the same way with servants or master, grownups or children. He lets you make fun of him – often himself joining the lough himself.
He won’t stand for his rights but would stand to fight for others. He got into a fight twice within novel, and both times it was to defend someone.
His natural goodness won’t let him be suspicious, angry or jealous of anyone; in fact he would reproach himself if he finds himself harboring any such emotion. This restrain is contrasted by people that surround him – drunkards, rogues etc (FD’s novels are always full of contrasts) It is not that he is above all emotions – he is easily excited – but by such emotions like guilt, gratitude and happiness and never so much that he could harm someone.
He is tipsy and cuts a messy figure which makes people under-rate him – the fact that he himself is ignorant of his abilities doesn’t help. He has a kind of inferiority complex about him, can’t believe that he can be loved by a woman – which is ironical because four woman are attracted to him during the novel.
A loved idiot
Thus it is easier for you to make fun of him; but you will do it at your own peril; his turn-the-other-cheek attitude is bound to find your love sooner or later. Even those who try to cheat on him end up loving him. A third reason for which he attracts attention is curiosity. He is purely original in his thoughts (as opposed to Gania’s lack of originality.) Thus while people under-rate him in beginning; soon they all end up respecting him - in a way. They adopt him, pet him, forgive him all mistakes and want him to do well in life; because of his absolute inability to harm anyone.
Lizaveta likes him but do not want him to marry her daughter to him - knowing that his goodness won't let him survive him for long in the world. However she won’t admit to herself reasons for same. One of the women he loves, leave him as she thinks she doesn’t deserve him; another leaves him because …. Well, in being good to everyone, he ends up hurting her.
P. is a good example who shows that if we play the good Samaritan too much; it is always at cost of harming ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, those who love or depend on us.
Christ?
P. was supposed to be inspired from a Hans Holbein the Younger's painting 'The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb' (see below) - the realism of which struck both FD and P. powerfully.
P's reaction upon seeing painting is here:
It is the fact that in this painting Christ has wounds and looks beaten just like mortal, his body is seen putrefying. FD's wife note how she had to take him away from this painting as she was afraid he would get one of his attacks.
While P. never preached or anything, FD definitely put Christ's good heart in him. There are other important distances between two, unlike Prince, Jesus was not shocked upon discovery the barbarity prevalent in the world. Jesus was, IMO, more assertive too and at least once got angry.
Prince's complete lack of aggressiveness is completely contrasted by Rogozhin, Dostoyevsky's idea of anti-Christ. And this anti-Christ isn't pure evil but someone who can't stand the idea of being cheated upon. A person lacking ability to forgive is all that Dostoyevsky's idea of evil. However Dostoyevsky goes one step further making Prince and Rogozhin friends. In the end, Prince's couldn't defeat the anti-Christ in Rogozhin and his own compassion became his doom.
FD makes P. a true Christian – a christen by heart and default; and convinces us that it is suicidal to be good in a world of corrupt souls.
An ideal idiot
Most of my favorite characters are either pure evil or complex anti-hero type; the stereotype Mr. Goody-two-shoes has never appealed to me; however Prince Muishkin, the idiot in the novel, is now going to be an exception.
He has suffered from idiocy due to epilepsy (FD too suffered from epilepsy attacks) all his childhood and early youth. Perhaps it was due to this idiocy that he has not adopted the common sense – the ‘normal’ way of looking at the world which is formed by slow corruption of our sense of compassion on pretext of what is called self-defense in a cruel world.
P. is full of compassion – which is very clear from stories he tells (the stories you tell, tell a lot about yourself.) His goodness (unlike Evegeine’s calculated goodness and Ptitson who allows himself only small evils) makes him indifferent to harm being done to himself if it means happiness of someone else. If you try to insult or hurt him; he would feel sorry for circumstances that made you do so; and let you cheat him. It is not so much that he doesn't notice or can't defend the harm done to himself but rather he prefers to suffer himself rather than bring on others - even if others are sinister in their ways.
He has no sense of social class - he could talk in the same way with servants or master, grownups or children. He lets you make fun of him – often himself joining the lough himself.
He won’t stand for his rights but would stand to fight for others. He got into a fight twice within novel, and both times it was to defend someone.
His natural goodness won’t let him be suspicious, angry or jealous of anyone; in fact he would reproach himself if he finds himself harboring any such emotion. This restrain is contrasted by people that surround him – drunkards, rogues etc (FD’s novels are always full of contrasts) It is not that he is above all emotions – he is easily excited – but by such emotions like guilt, gratitude and happiness and never so much that he could harm someone.
He is tipsy and cuts a messy figure which makes people under-rate him – the fact that he himself is ignorant of his abilities doesn’t help. He has a kind of inferiority complex about him, can’t believe that he can be loved by a woman – which is ironical because four woman are attracted to him during the novel.
A loved idiot
Thus it is easier for you to make fun of him; but you will do it at your own peril; his turn-the-other-cheek attitude is bound to find your love sooner or later. Even those who try to cheat on him end up loving him. A third reason for which he attracts attention is curiosity. He is purely original in his thoughts (as opposed to Gania’s lack of originality.) Thus while people under-rate him in beginning; soon they all end up respecting him - in a way. They adopt him, pet him, forgive him all mistakes and want him to do well in life; because of his absolute inability to harm anyone.
Lizaveta likes him but do not want him to marry her daughter to him - knowing that his goodness won't let him survive him for long in the world. However she won’t admit to herself reasons for same. One of the women he loves, leave him as she thinks she doesn’t deserve him; another leaves him because …. Well, in being good to everyone, he ends up hurting her.
P. is a good example who shows that if we play the good Samaritan too much; it is always at cost of harming ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, those who love or depend on us.
Christ?
P. was supposed to be inspired from a Hans Holbein the Younger's painting 'The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb' (see below) - the realism of which struck both FD and P. powerfully.
P's reaction upon seeing painting is here:
"The prince glanced at it, but took no further notice. He moved on hastily, as though anxious to get out of the house. But Rogozhin suddenly stopped underneath the picture. […]
"I like looking at that picture," muttered Rogozhin, not noticing, apparently, that the prince had not answered his question.
"That picture! That picture!" cried Myshkin, struck by a sudden idea. "Why, a man's faith might be ruined by looking at that picture!"
It is the fact that in this painting Christ has wounds and looks beaten just like mortal, his body is seen putrefying. FD's wife note how she had to take him away from this painting as she was afraid he would get one of his attacks.
While P. never preached or anything, FD definitely put Christ's good heart in him. There are other important distances between two, unlike Prince, Jesus was not shocked upon discovery the barbarity prevalent in the world. Jesus was, IMO, more assertive too and at least once got angry.
Prince's complete lack of aggressiveness is completely contrasted by Rogozhin, Dostoyevsky's idea of anti-Christ. And this anti-Christ isn't pure evil but someone who can't stand the idea of being cheated upon. A person lacking ability to forgive is all that Dostoyevsky's idea of evil. However Dostoyevsky goes one step further making Prince and Rogozhin friends. In the end, Prince's couldn't defeat the anti-Christ in Rogozhin and his own compassion became his doom.
FD makes P. a true Christian – a christen by heart and default; and convinces us that it is suicidal to be good in a world of corrupt souls.
stinky_phytoseiid's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
bookbadass6969's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0