You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
Mais um brilhante. Associo este ao Ana Karenina, porque tem muitas personagens, mas não tão alta sociedade. Nunca dá para descrever muito bem livros do Dostoevsky. Depois de ler andei a tentar imitar o Myshkin, estando atento ao final do livro.
Book 104 out of 200 books
"The Idiot" by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
"The Idiot" is the story of Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin, a social outcast-turned-aristocrat, who, in a sudden turn of events before the actual beginning of the novel, received a letter regarding his *inheritance and his state in Russian high society. He is, I could remark, a rose among the thorns, because he has to deal people who plans on leeching off him.
"The Idiot" is 1/4 of all of Dostoevsky's major novels, the other three being "Crime and Punishment", "The Brothers Karamazov" and "The Possessed" or "Demons" or "The Devils".
MY THOUGHTS:
I was suppose to read this novel slowly throughout the course of a month, but I found out that you can read faster, I managed to finish the novel in 20 days. This was my first and most recent Dostoevsky read, ever since "The Brothers Karamazov". I had a lot of weight on that book and didn't read Dostoevsky again for another 8 months.
This novel was quite difficult to read though, the character dialogues, the overall prose, and more importantly the description of the main character Myshkin, all were difficult to go through.
I'd say that this novel was basically the main character against the entire world. That was euphemism I just wrote, it actually is the main character against the people he both admires and detests at the same time.
This book was all about the main character's gullibility to trust others he doesn't even know intimately. Heck, if I remember correctly, even Gavrila Ardalionovich or "Gania" has some interests on the person of Myshkin. Gania considered Myshkin a friend. And Gania's general-father too, throughout the story's timeline, has some interests on the main character.
Overall, I believe that the main character isn't really an idiot, let alone putting clauses on the degrading word. In my own interpretation of the events of the story, the main character was in Russia but at the wrong time, the main character spawned in a hellish place with draconian circumstances, when he should've spawned at a better, more wholesome place.
In the end, I didn't really feel bad for Nastasia Philipovna, Myshkin's fiancée, she was killed for fooling one of the Street men. She was a narcissistic woman, Myshkin should've known that she was a leech! That is where my criticisms of not only the main character but the entire story gets.
Dostoevsky probably didn't as plan this novel probably because this work, in my opinion, is the easiest to get out of all of Dostoevsky. Returning to criticism, why didn't the main character realize that everyone around him was trying to leech of him? Even his "Friends" have something against him?! In the end, Myshkin goes back to the sanatorium in Switzerland, because of the fact that those around him thought that he was insane, in the end.
Well, this concludes my criticisms on "The Idiot". Though A provocative title, a bleak portrait it is the novel on 19th century Russia. Do I recommend this book to begin on Dostoevsky? Certainly, yes. Because it isn't as complicated and much of the novel explores those characters who despise Myshkin for being rich all of a sudden. Do I like or even, love, this novel by Dostoevsky? I love all of Dostoevsky and plan on reading 3 or 4 works, not necessarily long as this book or his "Demons", but 3 or 4 shorter novels or novellas will do.
This book was my first book of March 2022 and my First Dostoevsky book for the year, as well as the first Russian literature book I read this year. A great book, but not a deep one!
"The Idiot" by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
"The Idiot" is the story of Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin, a social outcast-turned-aristocrat, who, in a sudden turn of events before the actual beginning of the novel, received a letter regarding his *inheritance and his state in Russian high society. He is, I could remark, a rose among the thorns, because he has to deal people who plans on leeching off him.
"The Idiot" is 1/4 of all of Dostoevsky's major novels, the other three being "Crime and Punishment", "The Brothers Karamazov" and "The Possessed" or "Demons" or "The Devils".
MY THOUGHTS:
I was suppose to read this novel slowly throughout the course of a month, but I found out that you can read faster, I managed to finish the novel in 20 days. This was my first and most recent Dostoevsky read, ever since "The Brothers Karamazov". I had a lot of weight on that book and didn't read Dostoevsky again for another 8 months.
This novel was quite difficult to read though, the character dialogues, the overall prose, and more importantly the description of the main character Myshkin, all were difficult to go through.
I'd say that this novel was basically the main character against the entire world. That was euphemism I just wrote, it actually is the main character against the people he both admires and detests at the same time.
This book was all about the main character's gullibility to trust others he doesn't even know intimately. Heck, if I remember correctly, even Gavrila Ardalionovich or "Gania" has some interests on the person of Myshkin. Gania considered Myshkin a friend. And Gania's general-father too, throughout the story's timeline, has some interests on the main character.
Overall, I believe that the main character isn't really an idiot, let alone putting clauses on the degrading word. In my own interpretation of the events of the story, the main character was in Russia but at the wrong time, the main character spawned in a hellish place with draconian circumstances, when he should've spawned at a better, more wholesome place.
In the end, I didn't really feel bad for Nastasia Philipovna, Myshkin's fiancée, she was killed for fooling one of the Street men. She was a narcissistic woman, Myshkin should've known that she was a leech! That is where my criticisms of not only the main character but the entire story gets.
Dostoevsky probably didn't as plan this novel probably because this work, in my opinion, is the easiest to get out of all of Dostoevsky. Returning to criticism, why didn't the main character realize that everyone around him was trying to leech of him? Even his "Friends" have something against him?! In the end, Myshkin goes back to the sanatorium in Switzerland, because of the fact that those around him thought that he was insane, in the end.
Well, this concludes my criticisms on "The Idiot". Though A provocative title, a bleak portrait it is the novel on 19th century Russia. Do I recommend this book to begin on Dostoevsky? Certainly, yes. Because it isn't as complicated and much of the novel explores those characters who despise Myshkin for being rich all of a sudden. Do I like or even, love, this novel by Dostoevsky? I love all of Dostoevsky and plan on reading 3 or 4 works, not necessarily long as this book or his "Demons", but 3 or 4 shorter novels or novellas will do.
This book was my first book of March 2022 and my First Dostoevsky book for the year, as well as the first Russian literature book I read this year. A great book, but not a deep one!
This isn't a review as much as rants about the book.
So, this was a long read. (For me atleast.)
But damn it was beautiful. This book is - in the most direct way possible - a set of intriguing and on point ramblings, interspersed with a tale which if not for the ramblings - would be an easy one to read.
I wouldn't read this for the storyline again - but those pages and pages of nihilistic insight - Damn.
I don't understand how exactly - but you do end up relating to every character in this book - which is either beautiful, or utterly terrifying.
The champion of the book isn't the storyline - but the endearing characters and the beautiful way they're portrayed.
I seemed to be disapointed with the storyline, probably because it is realistic, thus depressing - of sorts.
I wish to have seen more of Nastasya, such an amazing character with such little presence. Wonder if Dostoevsky wrote another version of this through Nastasya's POV, that would have been brilliant (for me atleast.)
Next on to Crime and Punishment, I imagine to be a glorious read.
**********************************************************************
Added 3/5/2015
This is me reasoning out that Dostoyevsky's The Idiot is the better book (as it is in my head) - than Crime and Punishment, now that I’ve let it ferment in my mind a while. And forgive me I forget how these names are spelt. Apologies for all errors – I read The Idiot a while back and the storyline is a little fuzzy to me.
I admit that I read The Idiot (my first Dostoyevsky novel) before Crime and Punishment , and perhaps that set a standard of what Dostoyevsky is in my head – and maybe Crime and Punishment didn’t live up to these fancy standards to me – but I sincerely believe that The Idiot is the better book of the two for the following reasons.
o The Protagonist
o The Plot
o The Supporting Characters
o The Theme
o Conclusion.
• The Protagonist
The Idiot deals with the naïve, credulous Prince Myshkin – whose innocence is beyond doubt and forever has good intentions. Crime and Punishment on the other hand portrays Raskolnikov – a complex character in itself – cleaved in the middle between good and evil – and for the period of Crime and Punishment finds himself leaning towards the evil rather than good. A marked difference between these two novels would be the fact that Crime and Punishment deals majorly with Raskol – his deeds, his thought processes and so forth whereas The Idiot brings this array of delightful, deep characters that all contribute to the storyline just as much. The Idiot is as much as Myshkin’s tale, as it is Aglaya’s or Rozhogin’s or Nastasya’s – and Crime and Punishment is singularly Raskol’s thoughts – with other characters straying in here and there.
In terms of characterization – surely Raskol wins between Myshkin, spite being a cold-blooded murderer. Raskol certainly comes across the better fleshed out, deeply thought out character – probably because of his obviously polar nature. Raskol one day can without any regret kill an old lady , her sister and rob her, and another day give away his last Ruble to Katarina Ivanovo without thinking twice. Raskol, in the early chapters of the book does come across as rather a confusing character – considerate and kind sometimes – yet diabolical and merciless (his murdering of Lizaveta was rather merciless I believe.) Only later in the book do we learn that Raskol’s evil intentions weren’t evil at all – rather eagerness to believe he was surely better than ‘ordinary’ people. Another point to be kept in mind is that after Raskol commits his crime, he immediately realizes he is in no way one of the ‘greats’ – but struggles with acknowledging this guilt, all the while dealing with the angst of getting caught.
Myshkin – who is the central character of The Idiot , isn’t as confusing as Raskol – easily predictable, ignorant to a fault and rather endearing. Dostoyevsky’s takes his time to portray that Myshkin isn’t a blind bumbling fool – but rather what society would describe as a man who exudes goodness and expects goodness in return and a forgiving figure.
Perhaps the reason I prefer Myshkin is because he is greatly endearing – with his tales of love, his child-like belief in love and his pure love for Nastasya. Raskol is surely a much better character – egoistic, vain, brilliant, scheming, contemptuous and yet at the same time kind, considerate and a caring family man, but Myshkin is the more relatable character (personally)- a person who genuinely believes in the goodness of the world. Perhaps that is what attracted two women to him.
• The Plot
Straight off the bat, I admit – Crime and Punishment definitely has the better plot - Intense, thrilling and most of the time - brilliant. Crime and Punishment doesn’t waste much time to linger here and there – without rushing or hurrying through it. Every emotion is dealt with in excruciating detail – and if anyone thought Dostoyevsky boring certainly hasn’t screamed in terror at the plots and twists of this book. There were times I had to set this book down and take a few minutes to take in a passage before reading on – Dostoyevsky surely knows how to turn on the heat – not to forget all the while painfully making you feel like Raskol.
The Idiot , I’ll admit has no plot that warrants 500 pages. Condensed – it can be made to 3 pages of storyline – and parts such as Ippolit and his antics that in no way contribute to the storyline can be easily clipped out. In saying that, I also confess that the champion of this book isn’t the storyline – it isn’t supposed to be the storyline at all. It is Dostoyevsky’s (as Myshkin) ramblings here and there – that fill this book with color, making The Idiot such a delightful read. Pages and pages of reasoning, explaining, pondering, – that is the true genius of this book. I’ll admit that I read through this desperately waiting for the storyline to move forth (which moves at a snail’s pace just FYI), a stupid thing to do in retrospect.
Another point would be that Crime and Punishment is Dostoyevsky’s first novel – and perhaps was written as a juicy thriller to lure readers – and The Idiot was his mature attempt at writing a true novel (yes I just said that, I truly believe Dostoyevsky put more of himself in The Idiot than Crime and Punishment ). That being said – Crime and Punishment is certainly the happier novel of the two, The Idiot is depressing and dreary – most of the time morbid. (Surprisingly The Idiot is about societal life and Crime and Punishment the sob story of a criminal.)
Another point would be that Crime and Punishment moves at a steady, predictable pace whereas The Idiot balloons and deflates here and there – the ending rather abrupt and ends up taking the wind right out of your lungs whereas Crime and Punishment leaves you with this sense of content.
Which brings me to the crucial point – if given the choice to read The Idiot or Crime and Punishment again – I would definitely chose the former – simply because I know that this time I can enjoy those pages and pages of rants and ramblings.
• The Supporting Characters
Though the number of crucial characters in The Idiot outnumbers the ones in Crime and Punishment – both books have the critical Dostoyevsky element – a brilliant character that no one can truly grasp. For The Idiot – it is Nastasya and for Crime and Punishment – Svidrigailov. Both these characters are enticing, mysterious – which leave you desperately hanging for more. I truly wish the books were narrated by Nastasya and Svidrigailov respectively – just to get a tiny bit more insight into their minds. If I had to choose between the two – I truly don’t know whom to pick – Svidrigailov – the epitome of evil and madness (It is believed that Svidrigailov was supposed to be evil whereas Sonya was supposed to be the good.) or Nastasya – the maddest woman ever. Both are endearing in their own right – and at some point or another you can’t help feeling sad for both of them (trust Dostoyevsky to make you end up pitying a killer and rebellious woman.)
Svidrigailov - though it is never explicitly mentioned in the book, but it is heavily implied throughout- murdered his wife (Dunya’s former employee - I forget her name.) in his mad love for Dunya. Svidrigailov is a sort off half-reformed criminal and he admits to never having been faithful to his wife who never cared anyway, with a particular fondness for underage women – but his love for Dunya and his sheer desperation to be with her makes him kill his wife. Careless with the fortune that is left with him after her death – he ventures to Petersburg to ask Dunya just one last time if she could ever consider him – and eventually ends up shooting himself - in the most calm, methodological way possible. He is seen as a sort of devil on the shoulder for Raskol – embodying the evil Raskol would have turned into if it weren’t for Sonya. I don’t think I could ever get enough of Svidrigailov, no matter how much of him is there in the book.
Nastasya – is rather commonplace character nowadays (perhaps it all started with her after all?) – the haughty, pained woman who has suffered an undue injustice – and spends her days going between vanity and misery. Nastasya is well aware of the Prince’s affection for her – and one some level truly needs him and loves him but at the same time – doesn’t want to burden the pure Prince with her shady past. Myshkin admits that he could never love her – he only pities her – but when confronted between Nastasya and Aglaya – he chooses her.
No one can predict what Nastasya would do next – she puts the fear of God in all the high-ranking men of the society. Extremely beautiful but depressed – she spends her days going between the Prince and Rozhogin (whom she believes is fit for her stature). Towards the end, she wants the Prince to marry Aglaya (at the same time not wanting Aglaya to feel that she has won, but rather that the Prince is pittance Nastasya is throwing Aglaya’s way). In the end, Nastasya never actually realizes that she truly loves the Prince and can never be happy with Rozhogin – and ends up getting stabbed by Rozhogin who does this in his own jealous delirium. I love Nastasya – from the way she’s characterized to her whacky nature – and it broke my heart to see her dead.
• Conclusion
The Idiot wins – storyline wise and character wise. Boom! Crime and Punishment may be for the masses – but The Idiot is Dostoyevsky’s brain child – and I desperately hope The Brothers Karamazov (which I haven’t read yet, Oops.) proves to be along the lines of The Idiot rather than Crime and Punishment .
So, this was a long read. (For me atleast.)
But damn it was beautiful. This book is - in the most direct way possible - a set of intriguing and on point ramblings, interspersed with a tale which if not for the ramblings - would be an easy one to read.
I wouldn't read this for the storyline again - but those pages and pages of nihilistic insight - Damn.
I don't understand how exactly - but you do end up relating to every character in this book - which is either beautiful, or utterly terrifying.
The champion of the book isn't the storyline - but the endearing characters and the beautiful way they're portrayed.
I seemed to be disapointed with the storyline, probably because it is realistic, thus depressing - of sorts.
I wish to have seen more of Nastasya, such an amazing character with such little presence. Wonder if Dostoevsky wrote another version of this through Nastasya's POV, that would have been brilliant (for me atleast.)
Next on to Crime and Punishment, I imagine to be a glorious read.
**********************************************************************
Added 3/5/2015
This is me reasoning out that Dostoyevsky's The Idiot is the better book (as it is in my head) - than Crime and Punishment, now that I’ve let it ferment in my mind a while. And forgive me I forget how these names are spelt. Apologies for all errors – I read The Idiot a while back and the storyline is a little fuzzy to me.
I admit that I read The Idiot (my first Dostoyevsky novel) before Crime and Punishment , and perhaps that set a standard of what Dostoyevsky is in my head – and maybe Crime and Punishment didn’t live up to these fancy standards to me – but I sincerely believe that The Idiot is the better book of the two for the following reasons.
o The Protagonist
o The Plot
o The Supporting Characters
o The Theme
o Conclusion.
• The Protagonist
The Idiot deals with the naïve, credulous Prince Myshkin – whose innocence is beyond doubt and forever has good intentions. Crime and Punishment on the other hand portrays Raskolnikov – a complex character in itself – cleaved in the middle between good and evil – and for the period of Crime and Punishment finds himself leaning towards the evil rather than good. A marked difference between these two novels would be the fact that Crime and Punishment deals majorly with Raskol – his deeds, his thought processes and so forth whereas The Idiot brings this array of delightful, deep characters that all contribute to the storyline just as much. The Idiot is as much as Myshkin’s tale, as it is Aglaya’s or Rozhogin’s or Nastasya’s – and Crime and Punishment is singularly Raskol’s thoughts – with other characters straying in here and there.
In terms of characterization – surely Raskol wins between Myshkin, spite being a cold-blooded murderer. Raskol certainly comes across the better fleshed out, deeply thought out character – probably because of his obviously polar nature. Raskol one day can without any regret kill an old lady , her sister and rob her, and another day give away his last Ruble to Katarina Ivanovo without thinking twice. Raskol, in the early chapters of the book does come across as rather a confusing character – considerate and kind sometimes – yet diabolical and merciless (his murdering of Lizaveta was rather merciless I believe.) Only later in the book do we learn that Raskol’s evil intentions weren’t evil at all – rather eagerness to believe he was surely better than ‘ordinary’ people. Another point to be kept in mind is that after Raskol commits his crime, he immediately realizes he is in no way one of the ‘greats’ – but struggles with acknowledging this guilt, all the while dealing with the angst of getting caught.
Myshkin – who is the central character of The Idiot , isn’t as confusing as Raskol – easily predictable, ignorant to a fault and rather endearing. Dostoyevsky’s takes his time to portray that Myshkin isn’t a blind bumbling fool – but rather what society would describe as a man who exudes goodness and expects goodness in return and a forgiving figure.
Perhaps the reason I prefer Myshkin is because he is greatly endearing – with his tales of love, his child-like belief in love and his pure love for Nastasya. Raskol is surely a much better character – egoistic, vain, brilliant, scheming, contemptuous and yet at the same time kind, considerate and a caring family man, but Myshkin is the more relatable character (personally)- a person who genuinely believes in the goodness of the world. Perhaps that is what attracted two women to him.
• The Plot
Straight off the bat, I admit – Crime and Punishment definitely has the better plot - Intense, thrilling and most of the time - brilliant. Crime and Punishment doesn’t waste much time to linger here and there – without rushing or hurrying through it. Every emotion is dealt with in excruciating detail – and if anyone thought Dostoyevsky boring certainly hasn’t screamed in terror at the plots and twists of this book. There were times I had to set this book down and take a few minutes to take in a passage before reading on – Dostoyevsky surely knows how to turn on the heat – not to forget all the while painfully making you feel like Raskol.
The Idiot , I’ll admit has no plot that warrants 500 pages. Condensed – it can be made to 3 pages of storyline – and parts such as Ippolit and his antics that in no way contribute to the storyline can be easily clipped out. In saying that, I also confess that the champion of this book isn’t the storyline – it isn’t supposed to be the storyline at all. It is Dostoyevsky’s (as Myshkin) ramblings here and there – that fill this book with color, making The Idiot such a delightful read. Pages and pages of reasoning, explaining, pondering, – that is the true genius of this book. I’ll admit that I read through this desperately waiting for the storyline to move forth (which moves at a snail’s pace just FYI), a stupid thing to do in retrospect.
Another point would be that Crime and Punishment is Dostoyevsky’s first novel – and perhaps was written as a juicy thriller to lure readers – and The Idiot was his mature attempt at writing a true novel (yes I just said that, I truly believe Dostoyevsky put more of himself in The Idiot than Crime and Punishment ). That being said – Crime and Punishment is certainly the happier novel of the two, The Idiot is depressing and dreary – most of the time morbid. (Surprisingly The Idiot is about societal life and Crime and Punishment the sob story of a criminal.)
Another point would be that Crime and Punishment moves at a steady, predictable pace whereas The Idiot balloons and deflates here and there – the ending rather abrupt and ends up taking the wind right out of your lungs whereas Crime and Punishment leaves you with this sense of content.
Which brings me to the crucial point – if given the choice to read The Idiot or Crime and Punishment again – I would definitely chose the former – simply because I know that this time I can enjoy those pages and pages of rants and ramblings.
• The Supporting Characters
Though the number of crucial characters in The Idiot outnumbers the ones in Crime and Punishment – both books have the critical Dostoyevsky element – a brilliant character that no one can truly grasp. For The Idiot – it is Nastasya and for Crime and Punishment – Svidrigailov. Both these characters are enticing, mysterious – which leave you desperately hanging for more. I truly wish the books were narrated by Nastasya and Svidrigailov respectively – just to get a tiny bit more insight into their minds. If I had to choose between the two – I truly don’t know whom to pick – Svidrigailov – the epitome of evil and madness (It is believed that Svidrigailov was supposed to be evil whereas Sonya was supposed to be the good.) or Nastasya – the maddest woman ever. Both are endearing in their own right – and at some point or another you can’t help feeling sad for both of them (trust Dostoyevsky to make you end up pitying a killer and rebellious woman.)
Svidrigailov - though it is never explicitly mentioned in the book, but it is heavily implied throughout- murdered his wife (Dunya’s former employee - I forget her name.) in his mad love for Dunya. Svidrigailov is a sort off half-reformed criminal and he admits to never having been faithful to his wife who never cared anyway, with a particular fondness for underage women – but his love for Dunya and his sheer desperation to be with her makes him kill his wife. Careless with the fortune that is left with him after her death – he ventures to Petersburg to ask Dunya just one last time if she could ever consider him – and eventually ends up shooting himself - in the most calm, methodological way possible. He is seen as a sort of devil on the shoulder for Raskol – embodying the evil Raskol would have turned into if it weren’t for Sonya. I don’t think I could ever get enough of Svidrigailov, no matter how much of him is there in the book.
Nastasya – is rather commonplace character nowadays (perhaps it all started with her after all?) – the haughty, pained woman who has suffered an undue injustice – and spends her days going between vanity and misery. Nastasya is well aware of the Prince’s affection for her – and one some level truly needs him and loves him but at the same time – doesn’t want to burden the pure Prince with her shady past. Myshkin admits that he could never love her – he only pities her – but when confronted between Nastasya and Aglaya – he chooses her.
No one can predict what Nastasya would do next – she puts the fear of God in all the high-ranking men of the society. Extremely beautiful but depressed – she spends her days going between the Prince and Rozhogin (whom she believes is fit for her stature). Towards the end, she wants the Prince to marry Aglaya (at the same time not wanting Aglaya to feel that she has won, but rather that the Prince is pittance Nastasya is throwing Aglaya’s way). In the end, Nastasya never actually realizes that she truly loves the Prince and can never be happy with Rozhogin – and ends up getting stabbed by Rozhogin who does this in his own jealous delirium. I love Nastasya – from the way she’s characterized to her whacky nature – and it broke my heart to see her dead.
• Conclusion
The Idiot wins – storyline wise and character wise. Boom! Crime and Punishment may be for the masses – but The Idiot is Dostoyevsky’s brain child – and I desperately hope The Brothers Karamazov (which I haven’t read yet, Oops.) proves to be along the lines of The Idiot rather than Crime and Punishment .
Interesting and original story, it's written very good. However I am not amazed and every character in this book is absolutely annoying.
Prince Myshkin, an epileptic patient who just gets out of a mental hospital, meets people in St. Petersburg, specifically two lovely ladies by the names of Aglaya and Nastasya. The book shows what happens when you place a sort of messiah figure into an immoral scenario, and watch it play out. Myshkin is Dostoevsky’s idea of a moral person. He is reasonable, rational, honest, nice, thoughtful, and humble. The book is interesting specifically because people think he is an idiot, when he’s really not. He’s just extremely kind. There are multiple times where people think he’s been duped for money or other things, but it’s not because he was an idiot, but because he’s so innocent. The book shares Myshkin’s opinion on things regarding religion, politics, etc. He is a Christian who does not like the idea of socialism. He opposes Roman Catholicism because he believes it is idolatry. The book is fascinating to get into his head, and I think we could all strive to be a bit more like Myshkin every day.
Overall, I give this book 5/5 because of it’s awesome teaching in morality, existentialism, religion, and politics.
Overall, I give this book 5/5 because of it’s awesome teaching in morality, existentialism, religion, and politics.
Вся обойма в сердце, всем (не-)обывателям желаю не сталкиваться в этой жизни с настасьями филипповнами.
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Even Dostoevsky needs to outline, it seems... The Idiot is a mess of vaguely defined characters and grating melodrama. It's an interminable slog with a few beautiful or amusing moments peppered throughout.
Dostoevsky challenged himself to write a protagonist who represented the pure Christian ideal - what's more, he decided to do so without any sense of where the story would go. What develops is a series of conflicts surrounding two underdeveloped love triangles (2 girls 1 guy × 2 guys 1 girl) - our protagonist is in both of them.
I never got a sense of what Myshkin's deal is. Sometimes his innocence makes him impervious to social hierarchy - his simple-minded purity melts hearts and gets him into everyone's good graces. Other times, Myshkin is neurotic, obsessive, love-sick, theologically opinionated, and makes a terrible impression, coming across like a lunatic. I don't know why he falls in love with the two women he does (they are essentially the same character, both very fickle with explosive tempers), I don't know why he ultimately chooses one over the other (I suppose to protect her from marrying a jerk?).
The motives and characterization of the protagonist, Rogozhin, are baffling. Is he a showman who uses words and money to get his way, or a murderous 19th century incel? He shows up so rarely in the second half of the novel, why does so much of the plot rely upon a character we rarely see or explore?
Dostoevsky's protags in C&P and TBK are so well defined, I could tell you how they would react to almost any situation. Our boy is legendary at developing a strong central conflict and orbiting differentiated characters around it - so what happened here? I think the challenge of writing a "perfect" protagonist really limits how propulsive the story can be. Not to mention, the goalpost for what defines a perfectly Christian character keeps getting moved, so none of the behavior feels consistent or cohesive.
There are times where Myshkin defends people under attack, and times where he does nothing to apprehend a literal murderer. There are times where he accepts others as abusive drunkards, and times where he can't accept the fact that someone is Catholic instead of Russian Orthodox. People can be complex, sure, but if the conflicts presented to them don't trend in a particular direction, or escalate in tension, I'm left feeling confused and bored.
All the trademarks of Big D's writing - flamboyant dialogue, philosophical diatribes, ample description of character behavior, eccentric narrator voice - come across as infuriating when the story isn't engaging enough to warrant such embellished, passionate expression.
It seems like Dostoevsky's contemporaries felt similarly about The Idiot upon its release - so I'm not sure why it's aged so favorably, given its average Goodreads rating.
Dostoevsky challenged himself to write a protagonist who represented the pure Christian ideal - what's more, he decided to do so without any sense of where the story would go. What develops is a series of conflicts surrounding two underdeveloped love triangles (2 girls 1 guy × 2 guys 1 girl) - our protagonist is in both of them.
I never got a sense of what Myshkin's deal is. Sometimes his innocence makes him impervious to social hierarchy - his simple-minded purity melts hearts and gets him into everyone's good graces. Other times, Myshkin is neurotic, obsessive, love-sick, theologically opinionated, and makes a terrible impression, coming across like a lunatic. I don't know why he falls in love with the two women he does (they are essentially the same character, both very fickle with explosive tempers), I don't know why he ultimately chooses one over the other (I suppose to protect her from marrying a jerk?).
The motives and characterization of the protagonist, Rogozhin, are baffling. Is he a showman who uses words and money to get his way, or a murderous 19th century incel? He shows up so rarely in the second half of the novel, why does so much of the plot rely upon a character we rarely see or explore?
Dostoevsky's protags in C&P and TBK are so well defined, I could tell you how they would react to almost any situation. Our boy is legendary at developing a strong central conflict and orbiting differentiated characters around it - so what happened here? I think the challenge of writing a "perfect" protagonist really limits how propulsive the story can be. Not to mention, the goalpost for what defines a perfectly Christian character keeps getting moved, so none of the behavior feels consistent or cohesive.
There are times where Myshkin defends people under attack, and times where he does nothing to apprehend a literal murderer. There are times where he accepts others as abusive drunkards, and times where he can't accept the fact that someone is Catholic instead of Russian Orthodox. People can be complex, sure, but if the conflicts presented to them don't trend in a particular direction, or escalate in tension, I'm left feeling confused and bored.
All the trademarks of Big D's writing - flamboyant dialogue, philosophical diatribes, ample description of character behavior, eccentric narrator voice - come across as infuriating when the story isn't engaging enough to warrant such embellished, passionate expression.
It seems like Dostoevsky's contemporaries felt similarly about The Idiot upon its release - so I'm not sure why it's aged so favorably, given its average Goodreads rating.
slow-paced
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes