You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
Not gonna lie, this book is pretty dense and long-winded even by Russian novelist standards. But once again I’m enthralled by Dostoevsky’s storytelling, character development, and overall message.
To sum up The Idiot in one sentence: Nice guys finish last.
To sum up The Idiot in one sentence: Nice guys finish last.
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
tense
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
There are a lot of things one could say about this novel: the psyche of the characters, their flaws, their opinions, their suffering, their sins. There is a lot that can be said about the author's self-inserting through the Prince.
All I'll say is that I have never felt such sympathy for a main character as I have for Leon, and that is something that the book community knows to be rare.
All I'll say is that I have never felt such sympathy for a main character as I have for Leon, and that is something that the book community knows to be rare.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Chronic illness
Moderate: Alcoholism, Panic attacks/disorders, Suicidal thoughts, Toxic relationship, Murder
Minor: Violence, Grief, Death of parent
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
to start, lemme say that I really really wish I liked this book more than I did. I had extremely high expectations for this book bc i absolutely adored crime and punishment and sadly this book didn't necessarily meet those expectations. but that also doesn't mean that this book was bad. I found it to be extremely interesting, and Dostoevsky's depiction of humans and human nature is absolutely top tier and unmatched. I loved the characters in this book. I loved how insane and demented the characters are. I love how innocent and pure Myshkin is and how he's an absolute idiot bc of it. but I will say that the book started out strong, the middle was a bit iffy, and the ending was great. when I was in the middle of this book I really did not wanna finish it bc I had no motivation to finish it. but nonetheless I finished it and I'm glad I did. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna be reading this book again in the future bc I wanna see if I'll like it even more in the future maybe. anyways I would've liked to see more of Nastasya bc she is such an interesting character and honestly I didn't really care for most of the characters in this book tbh. I'm just really glad I'm finally done with this book lmao. idk I think that I didn't like this book as much bc I kept comparing it to crime and punishment in my head and crime and punishment is top tier for me so. anyways I think Dostoevsky is an absolutely brilliant writer and he's one of my favorites this book just didn't really hit for me for some reason idk why. anyways that's my two cents. good book, but crime and punishment was better.
I read this because of book club. Honestly, I'm not a fan. It's long and too wordy. Generally, the characters are maddening. Myshkin seems to be the one person who is not insane... or is he? Life is too hard to read books this depressing.
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
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