European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Dostoyevsky's The Idiot

by marco
Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 12:20:57 AM EST

Lots of things bothered me about Dostoyevsky's novel about a "positively good man" living amidst a decidedly not positively good society.

But -- and perhaps it's just the sheer bulk of the thing, and the way he manages it to keep it together, even as it leaks and groans precariously -- I acknowledge that there is something momentous, even masterful about it. (Actually, when my first reaction to something -- or someone -- is negative, it very often means I will eventually end up not only liking it, but saluting it.)

Well, I just wrote an informal "review" of the book for my friends, and though it is completely quick and dirty and unedited, and no doubt I will be embarrassed later about some things I write in it, I put it out here for ET in case anyone else has read The Idiot and/or knows a thing or two about Dostoyevsky and his Zeitgeist to correct my own impressions, remind me of points and aspects of the book that I have forgotten or may have escaped my notice in the first place, or simply to share yours about this book, which though I gripe about it, nevertheless has left its mark on me, if only through those characters who broke my frikking heart.

Update [2008-9-10 1:2:54 by marco]: I changed the original title of this diary, as the original one was pointlessly provocative.

i admit i enjoyed reading this one; it was hard to put down. and i admit i have not been reading much fiction lately, except for very modern stuff, so perhaps i am just not used to a somewhat "older" style of writing. but while the main idea of a "truly good human" being trying to survive in a morally corrupt, petty and vindictive society (that, to boot, is having a two-fold identity crisis regarding its position vis-a-vis the West and "modernization") is a great premise, and his depiction of the characters are astonishingly vivid, and this was the first time that i can recall actually being moved to tears by a passage in a novel (that of poor Marie, in the Swiss village where Myshkin lived for his treatment), in the end, i was more disappointed than impressed.

first of all, what a giant hairball of a plot, that jumps here and there, leaving subplots and threads abruptly, only to come back to them (sometimes) to finish them (often only in part), and leaving you wondering, "So what was the point of that?" it seems that Dostoyevsky wrote this novel in a state of utter financial duress, while he was in Europe running away from creditors and trying to support his family while he was at it, moving from one country to another, having epileptic fits at an unprecedented rate. Furthermore, he started and trashed several previous versions of the novel, with very different (though not altogether unrelated) story lines and characters, before settling on this final version. so this may explain the hectic, dishevelled organization of the book. and under those circumstances, it may even be a testament to his skill that the novel is as tight as it is. neverthless, i could not help wishing he could have cleaned it up a bit, slimmed it down, or at least -- failing that -- made more clear to the reader why he included so many (to my simple eye) extraneous episodes and people.

second, while the novel is supposed to condemn modern Russian society, especially its elite (and wannabe-elite), i got the feeling that Dostoyevsky, after all an aristocrat himself, was still a closet elitist: this is given away by how fussily he describes the mannerisms, mores and "morals" of the Yepanchins and their acquaintances, as well as the poorly disguised condescension (disguised in compassion) for the misfits of the underclass, of whom i cannot think of one positive example, except perhaps Kolya Ivolgin, who, however, gets a pass because (1) he is just a kid (and therefore not yet completely lost through his class predicament) and (2) he is devout admirer of the protagonist, who is a prince of an "ancient family". No, sorry, this is definitely closet, or at least covert, conservativism, in fact, reactionism. and it all comes out, with a bunch of undiluted slavophilism in Myshkin's pre-epileptic soliloquy during his "socity debut" on the eve of his engagement to Aglaya. (Marie is also an exception, but she is so pathetic [in the most Christian sense of the word], so extreme, that she might as well be an angel: indeed, that whole episode, if not his whole stay in Switzerland, was like a surreal interlude, before his reintroduction into the gritty "reality" of St. Petersburg and Russia.)

third, this book is a cruel fantasy for hopelessly romantic adolescent boys whom it will lead to believe that the most beautiful, brilliant and loving women will fall all over them -- in fact, fight viciously over them -- simply if they are "nice guys". what a joke! Dostoyevsky surely was not so naîve. he was in his 40s and was no romantic fool. but my guess is that in his distaste and perhaps fear at the breathtaking economic, technological and social advancement of the Europe he was observing during his debtor's exile, and his turn to a pro-Russia, pro-Orthodox, anti-technology, anti-modernism point of view, carried him back to some schoolboy utopian construal of women that led to such paragons of feminity -- the virgin good yet sassy girl Aglaya and the fallen passionate yet brilliant Nastasya -- who, if they exist in reality, would hardly fall for a guy like Myshkin. it's so absurd that in a way, i think this novel should be placed in the "Fantasy" section of bookstores and libraries, because that's pretty much the only audience that will buy such wishful thinking.

my guess is that Dostoyevsky wrote this as a warning to Russia high society: shape up, or else Europe (or at least European forces) are going to swirl in and wipe you out. and the way to shape up is, return to your basic Orthodox Christian roots. and like i said, he got carried away by his simplistic idealism. and yet he knew it was unrealistic and bound to fail, and that's when he said "screw it, i am just going to indulge in all these repressed romantic fantasies." and we know he knew these were just useless fantasies and that the fate of Russian's ancien régime was sealed: because of the abrupt and pointless and of course absolutely negative way in which the book ends.

but in one way, Dostoyevsky was not a fantasist, but the coldest realist, for his prophecy in the end became true.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Dostoyevsky's The Idiot | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

And yet, Lebedev's 'exegesis' of Revelation (4.00 / 2)

and critique of modernity and "progress" in Part 3, Chapter 4 about the Star of Wormwood, 'the springs of life' weakening in this 'age of vices and railways' astonished me. I still can't figure out why Dostoyevsky put it in the mouth of such a slippery good-for-nothing as Lebeyev:

(my bold)

...
"Another excellent idea, and worth considering!" replied Lebedeff. "But, again, that is not the question. The question at this moment is whether we have not weakened 'the springs of life' by the extension ..."
"Of railways?" put in Colia eagerly.
"Not railways, properly speaking, presumptuous youth, but the general tendency of which railways may be considered as the outward expression and symbol. We hurry and push and hustle, for the good of humanity! 'The world is becoming too noisy, too commercial!' groans some solitary thinker. 'Undoubtedly it is, but the noise of waggons bearing bread to starving humanity is of more value than tranquillity of soul,' replies another triumphantly, and passes on with an air of pride. As for me, I don't believe in these waggons bringing bread to humanity. For, founded on no moral principle, these may well, even in the act of carrying bread to humanity, coldly exclude a considerable portion of humanity from enjoying it; that has been seen more than once.
"What, these waggons may coldly exclude?" repeated someone.
"That has been seen already," continued Lebedeff, not deigning to notice the interruption. "Malthus was a friend of humanity, but, with ill-founded moral principles, the friend of humanity is the devourer of humanity, without mentioning his pride; for, touch the vanity of one of these numberless philanthropists, and to avenge his self-esteem, he will be ready at once to set fire to the whole globe; and to tell the truth, we are all more or less like that. I, perhaps, might be the first to set a light to the fuel, and then run away. But, again, I must repeat, that is not the question."
"What is it then, for goodness' sake?"
"He is boring us!"
"The question is connected with the following anecdote of past times..."
<...>
"... I am about to conclude, gentlemen; and my conclusion contains a reply to one of the most important questions of that day and of our own! This criminal ended at last by denouncing himself to the clergy, and giving himself up to justice. We cannot but ask, remembering the penal system of that day, and the tortures that awaited him--the wheel, the stake, the fire!--we cannot but ask, I repeat, what induced him to accuse himself of this crime? Why did he not simply stop short at the number sixty, and keep his secret until his last breath? Why could he not simply leave the monks alone, and go into the desert to repent? Or why not become a monk himself? That is where the puzzle comes in! There must have been something stronger than the stake or the fire, or even than the habits of twenty years! There must have been an idea more powerful than all the calamities and sorrows of this world, famine or torture, leprosy or plague--an idea which entered into the heart, directed and enlarged the springs of life, and made even that hell supportable to humanity! Show me a force, a power like that, in this our century of vices and railways! I might say, perhaps, in our century of steamboats and railways, but I repeat in our century of vices and railways, because I am drunk but truthful! Show me a single idea which unites men nowadays with half the strength that it had in those centuries, and dare to maintain that the 'springs of life' have not been polluted and weakened beneath this 'star,' beneath this network [i.e. railroad network] in which men are entangled! Don't talk to me about your prosperity, your riches, the rarity of famine, the rapidity of the means of transport! There is more of riches, but less of force. The idea uniting heart and soul to heart and soul exists no more. All is loose, soft, limp--we are all of us limp.... Enough, gentlemen! I have done. That is not the question. No, the question is now, excellency, I believe, to sit down to the banquet you are about to provide for us!"

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 12:58:00 AM EST

Mrs. Ivolgin, another positive character (4.00 / 2)

... of whom i cannot think of one positive example, except perhaps Kolya Ivolgin ...

I had forgotten Kolya's long-suffering, wholly loyal, loving mother, though she is less a character in the story than a background set piece, if a very moving one at that. Dostoyevsky seems to have a thing for mothers.

Which also brings to mind Vera, Lebedev's daughter, but she too is a minor character, and positive inasmuch as she plays the role of caring and obedient servant.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 06:27:17 AM EST

Re: Mrs. Ivolgin, another positive character (4.00 / 2)

I was just thinking: "Where is poemless when we need her?" E voila!

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mrs. Ivolgin, another positive character (4.00 / 2)

oh, everyone knows where to find me...

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 03:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mrs. Ivolgin, another positive character (4.00 / 6)

Send out a diary on Russian lit or film and a flashing light turns on in your office?

by MarekNYC on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 04:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (4.00 / 9)

Damn it. I'm supposed to be boycotting ET and you come out with your Dostoyevsky and Myshkin. How much did J pay you to write this?

This is my absolute, bar none, favorite book in the universe, ever. EVER. Myshkin may be my favorite charachter in the universe, closely followed by Stavrogin. (Curious, no?) Nastasia Filippovna brought me to tears, and her character is one I deeply relate to to this day. Not because of the outward antics (well, that too) but the whole question of, how one's past, upbringing, informs one's morality...

Which translation did you read? Or did you read it in Russian? Or some European translation? I prefer Pevear and Volokhonsky's translations. My first attempt to read the Idiot - in English - falied miserably because I'd gotten my hands on some rotten translation.

Could be said about a lot of his writing...

Furthermore, he started and trashed several previous versions of the novel, with very different (though not altogether unrelated) story lines and characters, before settling on this final version. so this may explain the hectic, dishevelled organization of the book. and under those circumstances, it may even be a testament to his skill that the novel is as tight as it is. neverthless, i could not help wishing he could have cleaned it up a bit, slimmed it down, or at least -- failing that -- made more clear to the reader why he included so many (to my simple eye) extraneous episodes and people.

1) I think - I could be wrong - that this novel was meant to be only a fraction of some ubernovel Dostoyevsky ideally wanted to write. 2) I don't remember much "extraneous episodes and people." Dostoyevsky is much like Dickens in that just about every character "represents" some idea, or philosophy, or element of society. While their actions might not seem integral to the plot, they're meant to personify ideas, illustrate their consequences or nature, be examples in a larger debate...

Dostoyevsky occupied a curious middle space between the Fathers, the aristocrats who were sensitive to the plight of the serfs, the poor, who championed democratic ideals, and the Sons, who were (while often well-heeled themselves) the ones who brought us Marx's proletarian revolution. He was a conservative, you know, a Christian. And a bit of a Slavophile.

It's about the illustration of different kinds of love. Myshkin is meant to be a Christ figure, Rogozihn, the opposite. Nastasia Filippovna the battlefield on which their worldviews duke it out.

Dostoyevsky surely was not so naîve. he was in his 40s and was no romantic fool. but my guess is that in his distaste and perhaps fear at the breathtaking economic, technological and social advancement of the Europe he was observing during his debtor's exile, and his turn to a pro-Russia, pro-Orthodox, anti-technology, anti-modernism point of view, carried him back to some schoolboy utopian construal of women that led to such paragons of feminity -- the virgin good yet sassy girl Aglaya and the fallen passionate yet brilliant Nastasya -- who, if they exist in reality, would hardly fall for a guy like Myshkin.

Oh., come now. There's little logic to why people fall in love...

it's so absurd that in a way, i think this novel should be placed in the "Fantasy" section of bookstores and libraries, because that's pretty much the only audience that will buy such wishful thinking.

Uhm, well, it is fiction. Actually, like most of his works, it's philosophy disguised as fiction.

LOL. That's about the best summary of all D's works I've ever read!

and we know he knew these were just useless fantasies and that the fate of Russian's ancien régime was sealed: because of the abrupt and pointless and of course absolutely negative way in which the book ends. but in one way, Dostoyevsky was not a fantasist, but the coldest realist, for his prophecy in the end became true.

A lot of people are freaked out by how "right" he got it. The Idiot, the Demons, etc. He saw 1917 coming before many of its participants were even born...

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (4.00 / 5)

Oh, and don't think I don't share your frustration with this book. When I finished it, I was so frustrated, I actually threw it against the wall and spewed epithets at the author for days.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hooray - poemless is back! (4.00 / 2)

I had a hunch that this diary might get your attention. Great critique of the critique by the way.

Completely agree with your comparison with Dickens.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hooray - poemless is back! (4.00 / 3)

Eh. Don't bust out the welcome home banners just yet. I've been put in a difficult position. I just need to support people who write about Dostoevsky.

Re: Dickens. Say, I just read a VERY good book I would recommend to ANYONE interested in Russian history, identity, whatev.

Natasha's Dance

It's huge, but so accessible, it makes Cliffs' notes seem daunting in comparison. And it's a page turner. That anyone could put all of Russian history and culture into one book that any 5th grader could easily understand is astonishing. It's a bit pedantic and simplistic, but not enough so to be reasons for not reading it. I think the way he pulls it off, is that he doesn't try to explain what Russia's "real" culture or history or nature is, but lays out the various myths, or way they've seen themselves over the years.

So, all of these ideas and philosophies we speak of when we talk about Dostoevsky using characters as symbols, like Dickens, well, they are all in this book. Please do yourselves a favor and read it. Did I mention how accessible it is? Also, there are pictures. And funny anecdotes. Like, there was once this aristocratic fellow, such a gourmand, he kept his pigs in nursery cradles, like little babies. See? Good stuff.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 02:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, darn. (none / 1)

Don't bust out the welcome home banners just yet.

My welcome banner has been reboxed.

by Magnifico on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 02:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

philosophy disguised as fiction (4.00 / 3)

yikes. something told me that i really didn't know what i was talking about and that i was not getting everything when reviewing this book, but i had to get it out of my system and out there, to find out what that was. thanks for helping me understand better and sort it out more.

poemless:Which translation did you read? Or did you read it in Russian?

Hell no! I read David Magarshack's 1955 translation (Penguin Classics). And I'll tell you what, and don't despise or beat me for it, but I never felt interested in learning Russian before, because I never found it a particularly beautiful sounding language, and reading its literature in translation would be good enough (especially after I heard this interview of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, about their new recent translation of War and Peace, and plus I heard it is ridiculously difficult. But reading this book, and by pure coincidence, reading an interview with Douglas R. Hofstadter who describes how he

eagerly gobbled down several English translations of EO [Eugen Onegin] (including Johnston's, of course), in the process falling deeply in love with James Falen's intoxicatingly beautiful version of EO. That love affair then inevitably led me, a few years later, to tackling the Russian original -- and to my utter astonishment, I wound up memorizing huge chunks of it (as do the Russians themselves), and then translating the entire novel-in-verse into English verse myself. That year-long adventure was one of the most wonderful episodes of my entire life, and I tell the whole story in my Translator's Preface to that book.
Translating EO into my own style of English verse, and seeing it in other people's styles in English, French, German, Italian, etc., gave me lots of metaphors for thinking about the human soul and how it can survive in other media -- after all, here was the "soul of Russian literature" (for that's truly how Russians conceive of Eugene Onegin, although non-Russians don't generally know that) being transplanted into a radically different medium and yet surviving beautifully in, say, James Falen's or Babette Deutsch's anglicizations (and possibly in mine as well, but I can't be objective on that score).

which reminded me that someone once told me that just to be able to appreciate Eugen Onegin in the original was reason enough to go through the pain of learning the language. You are lucky to be able to do so!

poemless:Could be said about a lot of his writing...

the hairball plot, or the circumstances he wrote this book in? (on the plot, see below.)

poemless:I don't remember much "extraneous episodes and people."

yeah, i felt a bit peevish about writing that after posting this diary, but that is how i felt as i was reading the book. maybe i have become spoiled and lazy by much simpler, shorter novels i've read recently that are much easier to follow. i may be masking my frustration at not being able to fully grasp the significance of the likes of Lebedev and Ippolit: after all, doesn't everyone want to actually be there for Ippolit's death scene, instead of just hearing about it, almost as a postscript? as much of an annoying bastard as he was, you sensed that Dostoyevsky somehow loved the kid, and it just didn't seem right not to give him the honor, and even the Dostoyevskian compassion, enough to be there at his side, so to speak, when he finally coughed his last.

but maybe it's not so much that characters or scenes are extraneous, but rather that i just haven't yet been able to understand or interpret them, and how they fit int the whole puzzle. hopefully, another reading can clear these up better. (incidentally, what translation would you recommend?)

poemless:Dostoyevsky occupied a curious middle space between the Fathers, the aristocrats who were sensitive to the plight of the serfs, the poor, who championed democratic ideals, and the Sons, who were (while often well-heeled themselves) the ones who brought us Marx's proletarian revolution.

These terms, "Fathers" and "Sons": do these roughly correspond to reform-inclined Russians of the artistocrat and bourgeois classes respectively? Ando/or re these a reference to Turgenev's novel?

poemless:He was a conservative, you know, a Christian. And a bit of a Slavophile.

Wasn't he more of a liberal and a "progressive" before his long stay in Europe, and returned more conservative, Christian, and russophile (I should have written Russophile rather than Slavophile, though indeed he was the latter as well)?

Before this novel, I had only read Crime and Punishment (with its "modern" theory of the Übermensch) and known of his reputation is "godfather of existentialism", so something about that made me imagine him as a "modernist" and therefore not a conservative. So I was surprised to read his conservativism in The Idiot: but aside from whether being godfather of existentialism qualifies one as "modern", maybe the "modern" vs. "conservative" is a false contrast in the first place.

poemless:It's about the illustration of different kinds of love. Myshkin is meant to be a Christ figure, Rogozihn, the opposite. Nastasia Filippovna the battlefield on which their worldviews duke it out.

Hmmm. I get that. But -- and again, maybe I am missing a lot of stuff here -- I find it hard to digest these characters as ideas juxtaposed so starkly, and so sentimentally, to convey some -- to my eyes -- moralistic and not so original message. I mean, do people really need to be told again that Christian love is superior to selfish passion? What would have been more interesting, and realistic, is if in the end Nastasia, like Lolita, had finally married Rogozhin, had children, and settled into comfortable, anodyne life of a bourgeois couple. The operatic climax was disappointingly predictable, and pointless. Or maybe that was the point: these were never meant to be just "life-like characters" in the first place, i.e. examples of actual individuals who might have lived in reality, but rather -- as you say -- symbols, and therefore when the novel ended, they each -- Myshkin, Rogozhin, and Nastasia -- had to be done away with in their own way, as their purpose had been fulfilled (Aglaya, more "individual" than "symbol" than the rest, but "symbol" enough that she too had to be "done away" with, but in a far more credible manner.)

poemless:Oh., come now. There's little logic to why people fall in love...

Yes, but please! Let me put it more graphically for you: Visualize a 25 year old Angeline Jolie as Nastassya and a 20 year old Scarlett Johansson as Aglaya. Do you really think our Poor Knight would stand a chance with likes of such beauties? Perhaps 20-25 year old women in late 19th-century Russian society were completely different than those in modern commercialized, mediatized, accesorized society, but the notion does seem very far-fetched to me. Well, what is also far-fetched is that such young people, Myshkin included, should be endowed with the superhuman qualities of goodness and passion that Dostoyevsky attributes to them (and that they should all cross paths on the same day in the same city!), so perhaps it comes down to what you write next:

poemless:It's philosophy disguised as fiction.

And you are going to kill me for this, but I swear I mean this in as value-neutral a way as possible: that thought occurred to me as I was finishing it up, and, well, I have to admit, it reminded me a little of The Fountainhead, not so much so in the particulars of the plot or characters (though there are some similarities between Howard Roark's and Myshkin's obstinate and indifferent-to-society attachment to their personal sense of the world, and Dominique Francon has a lot in common with both Aglaya and Nastassya, and while Ellsworth Toohey is a very different sort of person than Rogozhin, they both are the obvious foils and forces of evil and corrupt society contrasting with Myshkin/Roark), but in the use of characters as the "personification of ideas", as you wrote above.

Forgive me for that comparison, but it did pop into my head. I would just add that I don't mean to demean The Idiot in any way by it.

poemless:A lot of people are freaked out by how "right" he got it. The Idiot, the Demons, etc. He saw 1917 coming before many of its participants were even born...

Yeah, it freaked me out. And drove him that for whatever qualms or frustrations I had with it, this book was something I had to try to get my head wrapped around.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 04:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: philosophy disguised as fiction (4.00 / 4)

which reminded me that someone once told me that just to be able to appreciate Eugen Onegin in the original was reason enough to go through the pain of learning the language. You are lucky to be able to do so!

Actually, Pushkin's about the only thing I can handily tackle in Russian. The fact that Mr. Hofstadter memorized chunks of it of his own accord deflects from the fact that most anyone who studies Russian in any capacity is forced to memorize Pushkin by heart. I'm ... not Russian, and not a big fan of Pushkin. He's upheld like a God I think because he exemplifies Russia's ability to be civilized or something. I can't say I've ever been as moved by his actual poetry as I have by the cultishness of his poetry. It's the secret code language of Russian. Like pop culture references in America.

the hairball plot, or the circumstances he wrote this book in?

Both?

hopefully, another reading can clear these up better.

Before you re-read it, really, read Natasha's Dance.

(incidentally, what translation would you recommend?)

Constance Garnett? Honestly, I'd have to go home and look at my bookshelf... But I've yet to see anything Pevear and Volokhonsky have not done well.

These terms, "Fathers" and "Sons": do these roughly correspond to reform-inclined Russians of the artistocrat and bourgeois classes respectively? Ando/or re these a reference to Turgenev's novel?

Well, Turgenev's novel is a reference to the generational divide. You're really stuck on the class thing, but overwhelmingly, they were all from the same educated classes. The "Fathers" were the liberal reform minded Russians of the earlier 19th century, and the "Sons" were the nihilist revolutionaries of the latter part of the century. Bookended by the Decembrists and Bolsheviks.

Well, Slavophilism was an actual movement, in opposition to Westernizers. We can see the same "Should Russia be like Europe, or do it's own unique thing" debate alive and well today.

And I think it was his exile in Siberia that marked the turning point in his ideology.

Before this novel, I had only read Crime and Punishment (with its "modern" theory of the Übermensch) and known of his reputation is "godfather of existentialism", so something about that made me imagine him as a "modernist" and therefore not a conservative. So I was surprised to read his conservativism in The Idiot: but aside from whether being godfather of existentialism qualifies one as "modern", maybe the "modern" vs. "conservative" is a false contrast in the first place.

I think you have to look at "conservatism" and "existentialism" from a Russian perspective for this to make one ounce of sense. And not conflate existentialism with nihilism (a common mistake) nor conservatism with fascism (again...). But here's the thing, he was called an existentialist in hindsight, and made his religious faith known, but his novels are not like, I don't know, Bibles. The thing that always gets me about Dostoevsky is that he's really an expository writer, illustrating ideas taken to their logical conclusion by humankind. Then, at the end, he jumps into his Christian gear and ends with a leap of faith after being all rational and in the background for 500+ pages. I'm not sure he even ever figured it out for himself. But it led to some absolutely genius writing.

Or maybe that was the point: these were never meant to be just "life-like characters" in the first place, i.e. examples of actual individuals who might have lived in reality, but rather -- as you say -- symbols, and therefore when the novel ended, they each -- Myshkin, Rogozhin, and Nastasia -- had to be done away with in their own way, as their purpose had been fulfilled

Yes. I think that's true. Though, funnily, you'll always hear Russians and Russophiles comparing everyday real people to Dostoyevsky's characters.

If you're interested, he does write about real people in his Writer's Diary.

Visualize a 25 year old Angeline Jolie as Nastassya and a 20 year old Scarlett Johansson as Aglaya. Do you really think our Poor Knight would stand a chance with likes of such beauties? Perhaps 20-25 year old women in late 19th-century Russian society were completely different than those in modern commercialized, mediatized, accesorized society, but the notion does seem very far-fetched to me. Well, what is also far-fetched is that such young people, Myshkin included, should be endowed with the superhuman qualities of goodness and passion that Dostoyevsky attributes to them

Myshkin was meant to be a kind of "what if Christ were live today" character, and the novel an experiment to see if anyone could actually live in a truly christlike way in modern society. The experiment did not have a happy outcome, obviously.

I think the idea that beautiful women can't be attracted to nice men is a little annoying, frankly.

I've never read The Fountainhead and don't intend to...

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 05:06:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: philosophy disguised as fiction (4.00 / 2)

Your alter ego, MilMan, said that you'd be back ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: philosophy disguised as fiction (4.00 / 3)

thanks very much again.

You're really stuck on the class thing, but overwhelmingly, they were all from the same educated classes.

only because Dostoyevsky seems pretty hung up on it himself. even the Yepanchins are depicted as social climbers: although they belong to the "educated" class, they are not quite members of "Society". while he mocks and criticizes these classes, he does not deny their existence or their importance in ruling social dynamics in Russia of that day. but i may have been mistaken in assuming that different political movements corresponded to different classes.

And I think it was his exile in Siberia that marked the turning point in his ideology.

which reminds me that Myshkin's description of the torment of the condemned guillotinee was probably based on Dostoyevsky's own experience at being reprieved right before facing a firing squad in Siberia.

and one quick question about epilepsy: obviously it plays a big role in The Idiot; do you know if Dostoyevsky's own epilepsy -- in particular, that moment of "bliss" and "harmony" that came right before an attack -- had any influence on his spirituality/philosophy/Christianity?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: philosophy disguised as fiction (4.00 / 2)

while he mocks and criticizes these classes, he does not deny their existence or their importance in ruling social dynamics in Russia of that day. but i may have been mistaken in assuming that different political movements corresponded to different classes.

Well, when Dostoyevsky was writing, the whole class system was undergoing some change because of the liberal reforms. And it was a hot topic. Also, this is 19th Century Europe we're talking about, so there is a lot of the same kind of satire and criticism of social mores and bourgeoisie concerns that you'd find in like French or English lit of the time. Plus it, heightens the drama. People doing things which are just not done in a certain circle, and then it causing some ludicrous crisis or conflict. It's a literary technique as well as social commentary. But as to the political movements, they had different positions on the class question, but they were mostly led by the relatively well-off. This is de rigeur with most political movements. I think Hobsbawm writes about this phenomenon in which a movement begins among the intellectual elites, then begins to gain popular mass support, then only comes into effect as a result of some crisis moment. I think he was talking about nationmaking, but the Russian Revolution also follows that trajectory...

I'm sure.

do you know if Dostoyevsky's own epilepsy -- in particular, that moment of "bliss" and "harmony" that came right before an attack -- had any influence on his spirituality/philosophy/Christianity?

I don't know. It certainly seems possible. He wrote a lot about epileptics, but the one in Brothers K is an atheist and a killer. From what I know, Dostoyevsky's Christianity was mostly based on his philosophy of social justice and his Slavophilia.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (4.00 / 3)

How funny this is, remembering this novel a little bit.

I read it when I was in my 30's or 40's, in a spate of reading classics that I had missed.

Though I realize now that I don't remember a bit of it, if you had asked me to name my top 5 novels, it would have been one of them.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 11:48:12 AM EST

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (4.00 / 3)

Thanks for this diary, marco. The dialogue back and forth between yourself and poemless is illuminating. I bought Penguin Classics copies of , and when I was in my early 20s. I couldn't make it further than 100 pages into The Idiot or Crime and Punishment but found Brothers Karamozoff fascinating. Perhaps I could better relate to something set in the countryside, as that was where I had been raised.

The image that has always remained with me from Brothers Karamozoff is that of the drunken peasant beating his donkey to death in the snow outside the tavern because it could not get up. I found that to be a useful metaphor for too much of what happens in the world.

From Russian history I was familiar with the Panslavic movement, but I was an atheist, was turned off to US triumphalism and thus not too receptive to much of what Dostoyevsky wrote. I had found Zhivago much more interesting.

This diary has given me at least a limited understanding and appreciation of a work to which I likely never would have returned. Thank you marco and poemless.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 07:39:44 PM EST

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (4.00 / 2)

ditto, this kind of crosscultural pollination is so fun to learn from.

top flight, folks, keep 'em coming!

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 08:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Donkey Epiphany (4.00 / 2)

The donkey also plays a role in Prince Myshkin's narrative. It is the bray of a donkey that wakes him from his state of dispondency.

"Why? what's there strange about it? He has a tongue. Why shouldn't he tell us something? I want to judge whether he is a good story-teller; anything you like, prince-how you liked Switzerland, what was your first impression, anything. You'll see, he'll begin directly and tell us all about it beautifully."
"The impression was forcible--" the prince began.
"There, you see, girls," said the impatient lady, "he has begun, you see."
"Well, then, LET him talk, mamma," said Alexandra. "This prince is a great humbug and by no means an idiot," she whispered to Aglaya.
"Oh, I saw that at once," replied the latter. "I don't think it at all nice of him to play a part. What does he wish to gain by it, I wonder?"
"My first impression was a very strong one," repeated the prince. "When they took me away from Russia, I remember I passed through many German towns and looked out of the windows, but did not trouble so much as to ask questions about them. This was after a long series of fits. I always used to fall into a sort of torpid condition after such a series, and lost my memory almost entirely; and though I was not altogether without reason at such times, yet I had no logical power of thought. This would continue for three or four days, and then I would recover myself again. I remember my melancholy was intolerable; I felt inclined to cry; I sat and wondered and wondered uncomfortably; the consciousness that everything was strange weighed terribly upon me; I could understand that it was all foreign and strange. I recollect I awoke from this state for the first time at Basle, one evening; the bray of a donkey aroused me, a donkey in the town market. I saw the donkey and was extremely pleased with it, and from that moment my head seemed to clear."
"A donkey? How strange! Yet it is not strange. Anyone of us might fall in love with a donkey! It happened in mythological times," said Madame Epanchin, looking wrathfully at her daughters, who had begun to laugh. "Go on, prince."
"Since that evening I have been specially fond of donkeys. I began to ask questions about them, for I had never seen one before; and I at once came to the conclusion that this must be one of the most useful of animals--strong, willing, patient, cheap; and, thanks to this donkey, I began to like the whole country I was travelling through; and my melancholy passed away."
"All this is very strange and interesting," said Mrs. Epanchin. "Now let's leave the donkey and go on to other matters. What are you laughing at, Aglaya? and you too, Adelaida? The prince told us his experiences very cleverly; he saw the donkey himself, and what have you ever seen? YOU have never been abroad."
"I have seen a donkey though, mamma!" said Aglaya.
"And I've heard one!" said Adelaida. All three of the girls laughed out loud, and the prince laughed with them.
"Well, it's too bad of you," said mamma. "You must forgive them, prince; they are good girls. I am very fond of them, though I often have to be scolding them; they are all as silly and mad as march hares."
"Oh, why shouldn't they laugh?" said the prince. " I shouldn't have let the chance go by in their place, I know. But I stick up for the donkey, all the same; he's a patient, good-natured fellow."

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 10:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donkey Epiphany (4.00 / 2)

Myshkin IS the donkey.

Donkey = Ass = Idiot.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donkey Epiphany (none / 1)

Anche.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donkey Epiphany (none / 1)

Is that Italian? I don't know Italian. Does it mean, "That too,"?

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donkey Epiphany (none / 1)

Yes. Also.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 01:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (4.00 / 3)

From Russian history I was familiar with the Panslavic movement, but I was an atheist, was turned off to US triumphalism and thus not too receptive to much of what Dostoyevsky wrote.

What on earth does US triumphalism have to do with Dostoyevsky?
I am an atheist myself, and while D was an Orthodox Christian, he's also credited with writing one of the, if not the best, arguments for atheism:

Brothers Karamazov, Book 5, Chapter 4: "Rebellion"

"Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level--but that's only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can't consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it--I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven't suffered, simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when every one suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That's a question I can't answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I've only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It's beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers' crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn't grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be, when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: `Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.' When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, `Thou are just. O Lord!' then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can't accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child's torturer, `Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry aloud then. While there is still time. I hasten to protect myself and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to `dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket."

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 11:33:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 0)

What on earth does US triumphalism have to do with Dostoyevsky?

Panslavism has always struck me as just another cultural nationalism--Russians wallowing in their "Russianness." I have never bought US "exceptionalism" or triumphalism, and I am not about to buy it from another culture either. Likewise, I rejected the pathetic Protestant narrative of crucifixion, resurrection and redemption and was not going to buy the same thing, but with a Russian accent.

I was at that time without any direct mystical experiences through which I could relate on a different level either to the teachings of Jesus or the writing of Dostoyevsky. That changed by the time I was 30, due to my readings in the Vedas, some psychedelic experiences and some powerfully integrative dreams. I came to see the message of Jesus as being one of personal enlightenment that had been mangled and buried under a load of institution serving crap. It is possible I could get more out of his work now.

Now I will read the blockquoted portion of your comment.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 0)

You keep referring to "Pan-Slavism". This does not appear to be the same as the Slavophile movement. Related perhaps. I've never heard of Pan-Slavism (though it's pretty self-descriptive.) The Slavophile movement was in some ways, the inverse of this. It was not overly concerned with Empire, but it was a response to "what is Russia's true nature?" It embraced things like the Orthodox Church, Scythian roots, and Russia's more "eastern" identity. It was a reaction to the idea that Russia needed to "catch up with" or imitate Europe. It was looking inward for identity. Of course it was highly nationalistic. But I think we should clarify that this Pan-Slavism is not the same creature as the Slavophile movement.

Though weirdly enough, the Pan-Slavism thing seems to have shades of the Eurasianist movement I've been reading about all day. It's back. And it wants to play.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 04:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 0)

You are right. I reached into memory and grabbed the wrong word. I was intending to refer to slavophile. Pan-Slavism was a more political movement and served as an umbrella under which Russian support for the Serbs grew, among other things. The start of WWI could be seen as one of the fruits of Pan-Slavism. Marek may be able to correct or amplify.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 06:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 0)

In both the incident of the donkey and in the passage above, D is writing from the level of universal compassion and wrestling with the problem of "The Suffering of the Innocent." His dilemma arises from the frame through which he sees these phenomena, which is the narrative of the apotheosis of a patriarchal father into an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-beneficent deity. That frame is badly broken.

The idea of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-beneficent deity who orders our world in the context of that world as we know it is absurd. Why does institutionalized Christianity retain that frame? Probably because it is so compelling to so many people, ordering the world on the familiar model of patriarchal family structure, and probably because too few question the frame until they have bought into it big time, have families of their own, do the best they can and still get struck down. Then if they reject the frame, believers will say that this happened because their faith was too weak. Blame the victim. Keep the faith.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 04:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 0)

I'm sorry. I don't follow you. I don't understand your point.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 1)

I am trying to put together a diary that may or may not make some of this clearer. Sorry I wasn't able to answer your question to your satisfaction.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 1)

ARGeezer:The image that has always remained with me from Brothers Karamozoff is that of the drunken peasant beating his donkey to death in the snow outside the tavern because it could not get up. I found that to be a useful metaphor for too much of what happens in the world.

What a remarkable parallel with the story of Nietzsche's going mad at the sight of a horse getting beaten.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 03:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (none / 0)

There is also the incident of William Wilberforce, in the grip of a possibly fatal illness, having his carriage driver stop so that he could get out in the mud and convince a drover to stop beating a downed horse and to give it time to recover. This is presented in the movie , Amazing Grace which tells the story of Wiberforce's role in the abolition of the slave trade in England. Wilberforce went on to recover. I recommend the movie highly.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 05:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Myshkin-like characters (none / 1)

I'm ashamed to admit, I had not heard of Wilberforce. Thanks for the recommendation.

Speaking of parallels, I am currently reading Haruki Murakami's Kafka on the Shore, in which one of the two protagonists, Satoru Nakata, is a "mentally defective sexagenarian" who can speak to cats and whose ingenuous simplicity and kindness moves people, strangers, not only to treat him well, but to feel better themselves.

The similarity with Myshkin is striking, though I wonder if Murakami himself was aware of it as he was writing the book.

I would not be surprised that this "good idiot" character type is quite common throughout literature, and movies, if you look for it. Dostoyevsky himself draws a parallel with Don Quixote, though there are some significant differences between that "good knight" and Prince Myshkin. I am sure Shakespeare must have a Myshkin-like character or two in his canon, though I cannot think of one off the top of my head (Hamlet has some superficial similarities -- e.g. the madness, even if it is feigned -- but he is no Myshkin.)

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 08:27:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Myshkin-like characters (4.00 / 2)

Being There by Jerzy Kosinski leaps to mind as another example. It was made into a movie with Peter Sellers as the protagonist, an illegitimate, somewhat slow son of a millionaire who had never been allowed out of the house in which he was raised in Manhattan. He loved and tended the garden. The death of his father thrust him into contact with the wider world. When asked a question he would respond with an example from his experience with the garden which was usually apt. He was taken to be profound and went on to great things. I recommend both the novel and the movie.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Myshkin-like characters (none / 1)

saw and loved the movie.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 11:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dostoyevsky's The Idiot | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]