The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Sorrie well written

If you like Russian fiction, check this one out.

This is a good, but weird story. It keeps you interested. The Russian people depicted in the story are kind of super emotional, more so than most humans that I know that are not mentally ill. I guess I would say this story is about mental illness, but not in a way the reader will initially find.

Great!

Wow. I had approached The Idiot with a little trepidation, mainly because Id tried to read the novel when I was much younger. This time around, as a sort of "advanced reader", for me the novels fast pace and continual ambushes of scenes thrilled me. I think I read the book in a week or less.

Of course, as a philosophical novel, one that deals with many social, political, cultural, and legal changes within 19th Century Russia, Dostoyevskys frame of reference here is both iconoclastic and on-target. For long, particularly literate Russians, all steeped in Russian Christian Orthodoxy, suspected the West, and the incursion of all kinds of unexpected value and moral systems, most of them stemming from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Hence, ideas like utilitarianism, pragmatism, and materialism were seen by some as almost offensive to the Russian spirit. Dostoyevsky, who saw his Christianity, to put it into todays vernacular, as "on a whole nother level", and it definitely clashed with materialism, egoism, vanity, and the like. In fact, in some ways, Dostoyevsky was an early observer of the spiritual crisis for Christianity to come. Here in America, well, were there now. Prosperity gospel, as one example, never could have been possible in a society not so besotten by materialism and gain.

Then there are the distortions that occur to, in the Dostoyevskian sense, a truly and almost saintly man, Prince Myshkin. Hes a little like todays American intellectual: seen as an eccentric, as useless, as "not with the program, Myshkin cannot help to be bruised and sometimes even brutalized by the corrupt, vain, and prideful clan of people who have surrounded him.

I am particularly impressed by the translators success in capturing Dostoyevskys legendary rapid-fire style. Id highly recommend this translation to anyone who wants to peruse a world of both doubles and of duplicity.

I bought this to revisit Dostoyevskys exploration of the epileptic phenom, the loss of certain blocks of neuro-mind or whatever (after encountering some version myself), the dysfunction showing as naivety, innocence. My first thought this time was that D would have been totally dumbfounded by word processor vs quill, with lugubrious diversions spiralling off from each falter of thought to close it out rather than back up and strike through. Oh what a trial of patience. And oh those Russian names, the Prince, Lev Nicholayev, Mishkin, and spelling variants which may or may not be editor typos all being just some of the names for the titular idiot himself. The Russians of that time preferred to speak French, of course, but that did not help the rubble waste of names. In the third book the idiot has a fit-ramble off into hyper nationalist orthodox religion; I have not followed up to see whether critics put this down to Ds own rabid melancholic nationalism, or it is thought intended to take a saintly edge off the idiot and relate him to Ds Devils, etc. This book is a trial, an effort with dubious rewards. And a bad translation: too many sentences where one stops to reconstruct a piece of clumsiness before moving on, wondering if they were faithfully rendering a piece of D klutziness or taking time out to walk the dog. Constance Garnett is still preferable in the other D books.

Dostoevsky takes the reader on a wild ride as Prince Myshkin, a.k.a. the Idiot, returns to Russia after years of treatment in Switzerland to cure his "falling sickness." This has to be Dostoevskys most personal novel as in Myshkin we see his own battles with epilepsy portrayed and even a reference to the fake execution he had to suffer before being deported to Siberia as a young man. But, Myshkin is not simply a projection of himself, but rather one half of a complex "Double" with Rogozhin who personifies the lurking dark side of this novel.

Like "The Double," written two decades before, Dostoevsky deals in dualities, but here the dualities are many fold and quite complex, so this may indeed not serve as ones best introduction to him. Not only do we see Myshkin forced to battle Rogozhin, ostensibly for the soul of Nastasya Fillipnova, but Myshkin finds himself torn between Nastya and Aglaya, who themselves appear to represent two sides of the same coin, which Myshkin simply cant bring himself to choose one over the other.

We also see a split social life, as personified by the aristocratic Epanchins played off a Petit-bourgeois in an odd assortment of characters that circle around Myshkin now that he has inherited a modest estate. This group seems to be led by the two-faced Lebedev who rents a room to the Prince in a summer village outside Petersburg where most of the action takes place. This middling class seems largely made up of outcast, which the Prince finds himself involved with, much to the chagrin of the Epanchins who would like to bring this distant relation into their fold, especially when he develops a strong yearning for their youngest daughter, Aglaya.

But, rather than play this out like a Russian soap opera, Dostoevsky delves into the psychological profiles of his characters, often with comic effect, but ultimately with tragic lessons to be learned. Aglaya refers to the Prince as the "Poor Knight," in reference to Don Quixote, and indeed the Prince seems an amusingly tormented figure unable to reconcile the two worlds he finds himself a part of. The Prince appears to identify with an earlier Russia, one steeped deeply in old Orthodox faith, as represented by General Ivolgin, who has since become reduced by drink to that of a fallen patriarch, spinning tales of the old days with the Prince being one of the few persons who will listen to him.

The cast of characters are broad and each takes on a life of his or her own within the novel, thanks in large part to this wonderful translation. Dostoevsky gives his characters space, as a theater director would, to make themselves heard and felt. In this sense, it is perhaps Dostoevskys richest novel, certainly his most emotionally fulfilling, as it is less about Dostoevskys views on religion, the state of Russia or corporal punishment as it is his sense of redemption and how each of his characters struggle to find it within his or her soul, particularly that of his central figure, Prince Myshkin.

Like many other readers, I felt disappointed in the end - though I enjoyed as always Dostoyevskys madcap style, the action seesawed back-and-forth for 718 pages with an unsatisfying resolution. It felt like a very long episode of Seinfeld in which nothing happens.

My view changed after reading the introduction by William Mills Tood, which got me to appreciate that the main elements of the book for Dostoyevsky were aesthetic and philosophical rather than plot. The book was written under difficult conditions. Dostoyevsky was in debt and had a daunting deadline. Also, the book was written for serialization without a completed version in hand, which meant that he was making it up on the fly and could not go back and make changes to earlier chapters. Another interesting thing I learned from the introduction is that the sputtering and fuming style is in part attributable to Dostoyevskys method, which involved dictating to his wife while pacing frenetically around a small room; she would then transcribe the words neatly for his corrections.

Even without the introduction, I was able to appreciate some "post-modern" elements: Dostoyesvky seemed to pretend he didnt know what was going on in the minds of his characters, and at one point had a long monologue with the reader about how he didnt know what to do with some of his characters because they were too "ordinary". The intro confirmed this, suggesting that the narrator is himself kind of idiot or buffoon who is limited in his comprehension and knowledge of the events.

Another question: Was it worth paying for a modern edition rather than reading the free edition from Project Gutenberg? In addition to the introduction, I found the end notes very helpful to explain contemporary references, and for those reasons alone my answer is "yes". It was harder to judge the differences in translation, but others who have looked at the versions more carefully have said that they matter. Wikipedia gives a nice overview of the various translations over the years.

In summary, though flawed, the book is an important cultural icon and a worthy glimpse into the mind of a troubled genius.

I try to avoid giving five stars as a small gesture towards reducing Amazons version of grade inflation, but cant help it here.

The edition:
These Everyman cloth editions are just excellent. P&Vs translation flows beautifully. The paper is high quality and the font is easy on the eyes. The book simply feels good in your hands. Im tired of cheaply printed versions of classics--this edition does justice to its content.

The task of reading it:
A reading group provides incentive to keep up the pace. I read this in a few weeks, 250 pp in the last three days. This is exhausting but if you can find the stamina to get through it in a short time its better I think--the novel really inhabits your head so the impact is greater. The only place where I struggled was getting through Ippolits interminable letter. At this pace you feel a bit of Ds "brain fever" yourself.

The novel itself:
Its a great choice for a book club because it opens up so many topics for discussion. For example:

--The distinctions among innocence, idiocy, and mere stupidity. How the princes innocence waxes and wanes according to the needs of the plot.
--The expedience of "fever"--does fever absolve the characters of responsibility for their actions? (See also Crime and Punishment). If it doesnt, what is its point?
--Similarly, epilepsy. What difference does it make that he is epileptic? Plotwise, not much?
--Love as plot device. "Love" happens as if turned on by a switch. Both female leads are beautiful leading to wondering if the love is infatuation. Falling in "love" with a beautiful women is a mistake not specific to idiots indeed has been the downfall of many a wise man. What if one or both of the love interests were simply ordinary looking?
--Once caught in princes (lady trouble) dilemma, how might a non-innocent have been able to recover? No obvious solution, even for a wise man.
--Ds seeming disdain for work--anybody with a job is a beast of burden. Originality is more important than responsibility. His artistic characters lose money, lend money to nogoodniks, give it away, gamble it away, even burn it in a fire. None of this is judged to be "idiotic". Prince conveniently loses enough of his fortune to shysters to demonstrate his innocence, but manages to wise up (not described--see variability of innocence above) and hang on to enough of it to maintain status in his aristocratic circle. Money is only something you ought to have enough of to be able to make dramatic gestures that demonstrate your disinterest in the practical aspects of life. To actually go and earn it doing something of value to society reveals you to be not very bright at best, and, worst of all sins to D, "unoriginal".

But the plot is just something to hang the characters on. The psychological insights to be found on nearly every page are astonishing. When I finished I gasped--my head was full of another mans genius. This is why we read.

The Idiot (Penguin Classics) is an excellent timeless tale by the supremely good man Fyodor Dostoyevsky about the Idiot, possibly a character who has many traits that Dostoyevsky had himself. Dostoyevsky experienced much hardships in his life such that his stories of human conditions, thoughts and actions were convincingly authentic and therefore heart wrenching. The idiot like Dostoyevskys earlier works of Crime and Punishment, Rich folk, Poor folk, was immensely edifying to the soul. I enjoyed the translated work by the talented David McDuff and the introduction by William Mills Todd. They were key to bridging non Russian speaking folks to Dostoyevskys great mind and they did it in an excellent fashion (hence the premium price commanded by Penguin Classics). Prince Myshkin, a simpleton with a heart of gold, was too gullible to survive long in a complex, conniving, dishonest and immoral world. Yet it was his sincere, quiet, humble, non violent and compassionate heart that made him such an irresistible beacon of light drawing the confused, the corrupted, the melancholy, the down-&-out vagabond riffraffs of society toward him. Prince Myshkin is Christ like. With the purest childlike innocence, he believed compassion and generosity and respect for the neighbour to be the only way to treat another human being. To be a master, one must first be a slave to all (Mark 10:44). A loose and immoral woman despised by society was preferred over a beautiful upperclass lady raised by societys highest standards. These are the two outstanding and unique Christian virtues championed by Christ and emulated by our idiot in the story. I have read Dostoyevskys works in chronological sequence. The advantage is to observe the maturity and the richness of his work growing with time. Thats understandable if we believe that we change and mature with time with life experiences piling on. Next for me is Demons (Penguin Classics) a highly political novel.