You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
There is a saying that when reading a great novel it acts like a mirror to your heart; this statement cannot be more relevant for The Idiot.
Prince Myshkin starts as a mystic figure who is almost prophetic in a sense that he systematically opens up layers of veil that enshroud peoples pride. For me, his criticality starts to break down in the latter half of the novel where his idiosyncratic reflection on those around him as well as his narrow-mindedness become a nuisance. In one instance, at a Russian aristocracy party, his anger towards Catholicism and Russian elites has completely shattered the social fabrics of etiquette. By ignoring repeated suggestion to stop his tirade, he has effectively over-stepped boundaries and his over-confidence in his judgement of the situation make him look rather naive. This reveals his inability to interweave his personality with the societal constraints - a sign of immaturity and to an extent ignorance.
It's interesting to see the comparison between The Idiot and Crime and Punishment. In one instance, Myshkin is portrayed as an articulate man, unbound by social norm while simultaneously stabs into the core of defects across the Russian elites. However, what we see at the end is a pitiful young man who cannot be accepted into the society due to his peculiarity, critical views and vanity. The converse is true for Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment who, despite being a cold-blooded murderer, is portrayed as a culmination of human tenderness, compassion and regret which ultimately leads to redemption. In other words, for me at least, Myskin mirrors the flaws in my characters which I try to suppress while Raskolnikov enlightens virtues that inspire.
Lastly, The Idiot is definitely a smart title. Not surprising that many people consider it as a paradox.
Prince Myshkin starts as a mystic figure who is almost prophetic in a sense that he systematically opens up layers of veil that enshroud peoples pride. For me, his criticality starts to break down in the latter half of the novel where his idiosyncratic reflection on those around him as well as his narrow-mindedness become a nuisance. In one instance, at a Russian aristocracy party, his anger towards Catholicism and Russian elites has completely shattered the social fabrics of etiquette. By ignoring repeated suggestion to stop his tirade, he has effectively over-stepped boundaries and his over-confidence in his judgement of the situation make him look rather naive. This reveals his inability to interweave his personality with the societal constraints - a sign of immaturity and to an extent ignorance.
It's interesting to see the comparison between The Idiot and Crime and Punishment. In one instance, Myshkin is portrayed as an articulate man, unbound by social norm while simultaneously stabs into the core of defects across the Russian elites. However, what we see at the end is a pitiful young man who cannot be accepted into the society due to his peculiarity, critical views and vanity. The converse is true for Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment who, despite being a cold-blooded murderer, is portrayed as a culmination of human tenderness, compassion and regret which ultimately leads to redemption. In other words, for me at least, Myskin mirrors the flaws in my characters which I try to suppress while Raskolnikov enlightens virtues that inspire.
Lastly, The Idiot is definitely a smart title. Not surprising that many people consider it as a paradox.