You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
Wow. This is a chunky book. Just a few words that won't do the book justice. On a superficial level, the book is about a seemingly naive 27 year old called Myshkin who drifts around St. Petersburg and gets caught up in drama with several flawed people. On a deeper level, Myshkin represents an ideal - open, humble, and compassionate. The question is what happens when an ideal human collides in a world of self-absorbed people?
I'm drawn to the more surreal parts of the novel, where the narration of the author and Myshkin's train of thought blend as Myshkin is experiencing an epileptic aura. The narrator gradually loses clarity towards the end of the novel too as Myshkin loses his mind.
I'm drawn to the more surreal parts of the novel, where the narration of the author and Myshkin's train of thought blend as Myshkin is experiencing an epileptic aura. The narrator gradually loses clarity towards the end of the novel too as Myshkin loses his mind.
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Not having known what to expect with this one, I went in with an open mind and stayed assiduous during the reading, thinking there might be something fascinating to make this one top the "Best Books" lists I'm always reading. Not so. It's a good book and craziness abounds in the last section, but it didn't enchant me. It's essentially the story of a good, honest man cast in with a group of people overly concerned about society, scandals, money, drama, and themselves. Poor Prince Myshkin, having just spent some time in a sanitarium for his epilepsy, was ill-prepared to handle the sideshow that these people called their lives.
One character loses something from the pocket of his pants and goes through an accusatory and inflammatory tirade in his head about the substance of his peers. Turns out the man was just drunk and dropped it beneath a chair.
The women involved with Myshkin in this made me shake my head; one is flighty and stupid, the other…well, that girl? She crazy. She needs meds. Well, needed them before she was killed by a psychopath who was in love with her and also tried to kill Myshkin. Why Myshkin would sit around comforting this attempted - and successful - murderer is beyond my grasp.
What I didn't like was the speech Myshkin made at the party; he busted on atheists for a good deal of the novel but seemed to let loose in his speech. Strangely, he hated Catholics for apparently the same reason. Despite this, I liked Myshkin; he was a truly nice guy and honest to a fault. No character deserved his affection. However, he truly was an idiot not for falling in love with the wrong woman or being epileptic, but for hanging around those acrimonious people. I will fault him for that. It's a shame they collectively quashed the good from him and left him a shell of a man.
One character loses something from the pocket of his pants and goes through an accusatory and inflammatory tirade in his head about the substance of his peers. Turns out the man was just drunk and dropped it beneath a chair.
The women involved with Myshkin in this made me shake my head; one is flighty and stupid, the other…well, that girl? She crazy. She needs meds. Well, needed them before she was killed by a psychopath who was in love with her and also tried to kill Myshkin. Why Myshkin would sit around comforting this attempted - and successful - murderer is beyond my grasp.
What I didn't like was the speech Myshkin made at the party; he busted on atheists for a good deal of the novel but seemed to let loose in his speech. Strangely, he hated Catholics for apparently the same reason. Despite this, I liked Myshkin; he was a truly nice guy and honest to a fault. No character deserved his affection. However, he truly was an idiot not for falling in love with the wrong woman or being epileptic, but for hanging around those acrimonious people. I will fault him for that. It's a shame they collectively quashed the good from him and left him a shell of a man.
inspiring
slow-paced
What can I say about this book by Fiddy D? While I started off really enjoying it, about two-thirds of the way through, I grew frustrated, and by the end, I just wanted to be done.
The good things about this book:
~ A cliffhanger at the end of every chapter since it was originally written in a serial format
~ An interesting cast of characters
~ A sympathetic protagonist who is a Christ-figure
~ Over-the-top screaming matches among families and groups that resemble reality tv -- get the popcorn!
The bad things about this book:
~ Lots of rambling about philosophical concepts with no clear final opinion
~ Women who waffle on EVERY front
~ The ending
I can’t say that I would recommend this one, but I wanted to read it before tackling Elif Batuman’s novel, also entitled “The Idiot” in a nod to Dostoevsky. Her work was a Pulitzer finalist in 2018.
The good things about this book:
~ A cliffhanger at the end of every chapter since it was originally written in a serial format
~ An interesting cast of characters
~ A sympathetic protagonist who is a Christ-figure
~ Over-the-top screaming matches among families and groups that resemble reality tv -- get the popcorn!
The bad things about this book:
~ Lots of rambling about philosophical concepts with no clear final opinion
~ Women who waffle on EVERY front
~ The ending
I can’t say that I would recommend this one, but I wanted to read it before tackling Elif Batuman’s novel, also entitled “The Idiot” in a nod to Dostoevsky. Her work was a Pulitzer finalist in 2018.
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
After reading Crime and Punishment, I still wanted to try and get more into Dostoyevsky and I heard good things about The Idiot. I definitely had more moments of getting attached to the characters and interactions in this book, but I don't think I just ever got fully invested.
Just like every character in this book, I did find myself immediately loving Prince Myshkin. How could you not? I do love a good idiot. I could relate to him because I felt like I personally have a similar outlook (or I like to think I do) on people and life, as far as how kind he can be, but also tell myself I know where to have boundaries.
I know the whole theme is meant to be, the Prince is just too good and too kind for this world, and we could never deserve someone like that without ruining them. I appreciated that after I reflected upon it once I was finished with the book. But I just couldn't find myself attached to the story while reading it.
Just like every character in this book, I did find myself immediately loving Prince Myshkin. How could you not? I do love a good idiot. I could relate to him because I felt like I personally have a similar outlook (or I like to think I do) on people and life, as far as how kind he can be, but also tell myself I know where to have boundaries.
I know the whole theme is meant to be, the Prince is just too good and too kind for this world, and we could never deserve someone like that without ruining them. I appreciated that after I reflected upon it once I was finished with the book. But I just couldn't find myself attached to the story while reading it.
This was a nice read, and I'd definitely recommend it. However, for me personally, I found it hard to really get into the story and a lot of things went over my head (because I googled everything after and little clues throughout my reading experience). I think that if I had known more about Russian society, or perhaps if this wasn't my first actual Russian classic with like more than a single character I could probably get more out of it, but I felt like I really didn't connect. I am going to keep reading Dostoyevsky, because I do enjoy the basic story, and I'm sure I will continue learning. I'm excited to read The Double eventually, because I saw the movie with Jesse Eisenberg a couple years back and really liked it, and it might be helpful having that bigger picture and thread going into the actual novel.
I give a gold star to myself for finishing this book. And enjoying it! It was not an easy read. It's incredibly dense, which is one of the things I liked about it. Had trouble keeping the minor characters straight. There are a lot of them and the Russian name thing tripped me up a lot at first. I did take a break mid-book to read some other lighter stuff. But I came back and was richly rewarded. The best thing about this book are the characters. Nowhere in fiction have I encountered any like them. They are mercurial, unpredicatable and yet, believable and compelling. Also, even up to the last page the book doesn't go where you think it going to go. When characters who were created over 100 years ago reach out to you, take you places you don't think you're going to and leave indeliable impressions on you, that's amazing. I guess that's what they mean by classic.
challenging
dark
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is a LONG meandering book. Don't expect plot, but in-depth character studies.
Prince Myshkin is kind, compassionate and devoid of lust like the asexual Jesus Christ. But he is also amoral like Albert Camus' Meursault.
Murderers and children feel safe in the presence of Myshkin. After Rogozhin murders his fiance he does not say "I forgive you, Rogozhin". In Myshkin's mind, there is nothing to forgive, Rogozhin has done nothing wrong. In his multitudinous compassion, the rules of right and wrong are lost.
Does kindness and understanding to ALL, breed amorality?
Hermanne Hesse states it best,
Prince Myshkin is kind, compassionate and devoid of lust like the asexual Jesus Christ. But he is also amoral like Albert Camus' Meursault.
Murderers and children feel safe in the presence of Myshkin. After Rogozhin
Does kindness and understanding to ALL, breed amorality?
Hermanne Hesse states it best,
"The highest reality in the eyes of human culture lies in this dividing up of the world into bright and dark, good and evil, permissible and forbidden. For Myshkin the highest reality, however, is the magical experience of the reversibility of all fixed rules...
The fact that this foe of order, this frightful destroyer, appears not as a criminal but as a shy, endearing person full of childlikeness and charm, a good-hearted, selfless, benevolent man, this is the secret of this terrifying book."