Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

read book

The Idiot

by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Constance Garnett (Translator), Joseph Frank (Introduction), Anna Brailovsky (Translator)

4.12 of 5 stars 4.12 · rating details · 38,170 ratings · 1,577 reviews

Returning to Russia from a sanitarium in Switzerland, the Christ-like epileptic Prince Myshkin finds himself enmeshed in a tangle of love, torn between two women—the notorious kept woman Nastasya and the pure Aglaia—both involved, in turn, with the corrupt, money-hungry Ganya. In the end, Myshkin’s honesty, goodness, and integrity are shown to be unequal to the moral empti...more

Paperback, 667 pages

Published April 8th 2003 by Modern Library (first published 1868)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling

Best Books Ever

305th out of 24,592 books — 93,828 voters

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

Best Russian Literature

6th out of 283 books — 1,015 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Dec 09, 2011 Petra X rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: fiction

There are many reviews of this book making out that Prince Myshkin was Christ-like, a truly good man who lived for the moment. A holy idiot, or more accurately, wholly idiot indeed is what he really was. Why did they think Dostoyevsky entitled the book, The Idiot if he meant 'The Man who was Innocent and Really Good" or "The Man who was like Jesus"? The title wasn't any kind of irony, it was about an idiot.

Prince Myshkin had spent years in a sanitarium for his epilepsy and returns to Russia wher...more

62 likes · like · see review

view all 28 comments

Wendy Darling I'm trying to get better about just deleting comments and moving on, Petra. But as much as I hate to see the nastiness on my reviews, I actually think...more
updated Nov 04, 2012 11:15am

Petra X Wendy Darling wrote: "I'm trying to get better about just deleting comments and moving on, Petra. But as much as I hate to see the nastiness on my rev...more
updated Mar 28, 2013 06:47pm

Aug 09, 2009 Michelle rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics

I’ve been trying to review this book for over a week now, but I can’t. I’m struggling with something: How do I review a Russian literature classic? Better yet, how do I review a Russian literature classic without sounding like a total dumbass? (Hint: It’s probably not going to happen.)

First I suppose a short plot synopsis should be in order:

The Idiot portrays young, childlike Prince Myshkin, who returns to his native Russia to seek out distant relatives after he has spent several years in a Swi...more I’ve been trying to review this book for over a week now, but I can’t. I’m struggling with something: How do I review a Russian literature classic? Better yet, how do I review a Russian literature classic without sounding like a total dumbass? (Hint: It’s probably not going to happen.)

First I suppose a short plot synopsis should be in order:

The Idiot portrays young, childlike Prince Myshkin, who returns to his native Russia to seek out distant relatives after he has spent several years in a Swiss sanatorium. While on the train to Russia, he meets and befriends a man of dubious character called Rogozhin. Rogozhin is unhealthily obsessed with the mysterious beauty, Nastasya Filippovna to the point where the reader just knows nothing good will come of it. Of course the prince gets caught up with Rogozhin, Filippovna, and the society around them.

The only other Dostoevsky novel I’ve read was Crime and Punishment, so of course my brain is going to compare the two. Where Crime and Punishment deals with Raskolnikov’s internal struggle, The Idiot deals with Prince Myshkin’s effect on the society he finds himself a part of. And what a money-hungry, power-hungry, cold and manipulative society it is.

I admit that in the beginning and throughout much of the novel I felt intensely protective of Prince Myshkin. I got pissed off when people would laugh at him or call him an idiot. Then towards the end of the novel, I even ended up calling him an idiot a few times. Out loud. One time I actually said “Oh, you are an idiot!” But then I felt bad.

Poor Prince Myshkin. I think he was simply too good and too naïve for the world around him.

Now here is where my thought process starts to fall apart. There’s just so much to write about that I can’t even begin to write anything. There were so many themes that were explored in the novel such as nihilism, Christ as man rather than deity, losing one’s faith, and capital punishment among other things. And I haven’t even mentioned Dostoevsky’s peripheral characters yet, which, like those in Crime and Punishment, are at least as interesting, if not more interesting than the main characters. My favorite character was Aglaya Ivanovna. She was so conflicted with regard to her feelings about the prince and loved him in spite of herself. I had mixed feelings toward Ganya. I mostly disliked him, but I grew to like him more towards the end. The entire novel was much like a soap opera, but a good soap opera, if that makes sense.

Well, at this point I’ve been moving paragraphs around for far too long, and I realize there’s no way this review will do the book any justice. I wanted to write about the symbolism of the Holbein painting and how I love that in both Dostoevsky books I've read he references dreams the characters have, but I just have too many questions and not enough answers. Instead I'll just say that it was truly an excellent read and definitely worth your time.(less)

90 likes · like · see review

Apr 29, 2013 Megan Baxter rated it 4 of 5 stars

What is the difference between simplicity and being an idiot? In different ways, this question is asked over and over again over the course of this book. And can an honest man survive in society - to be precise, Russian society in the 19th century.

Prince Myshkin, the titular "idiot," returns to Russia after spending most of his life in Switzerland being treated for epilepsy. As such, he is sheltered, simple, honest, and odd. Whether these attributes come from his care, his personality, or his i...more What is the difference between simplicity and being an idiot? In different ways, this question is asked over and over again over the course of this book. And can an honest man survive in society - to be precise, Russian society in the 19th century.

Prince Myshkin, the titular "idiot," returns to Russia after spending most of his life in Switzerland being treated for epilepsy. As such, he is sheltered, simple, honest, and odd. Whether these attributes come from his care, his personality, or his illness are a little up in the air. But undoubtedly he does not fit into Russian society, and upsets several apple carts as society people try to figure out what they think of this strange, earnest young man.

On his voyages through the rocky seas of society, Myshkin becomes embroiled in the fortunes of a beautiful young woman, Nastasya Filippovna, whose character was destroyed by her guardian, who took her as his lover, and set her up lavishly. In her realization of what has been done to her, and the irrevocableness of her split from good, she becomes bitter and volatile. She has been courted by men of good name, men of no name, but plenty of money, and even by Prince Myshkin, whose pity for her overwhelms him. One of her suitors, the one with no title to speak of, but plenty of money, Rogozhin, is obsessed with her.

Myshkin also makes the acquaintance of a family of fairly good name, although not of the top tier of society. The youngest daughter of the family, Aglaia, toys with Myshkin and his affections - or does she? Is she more in earnest than even she realizes?

The Idiot examines the superficiality of society at great length, and the pettiness and cruelty with which people react when faced with a man who does not tell lies, who says what he means, who has few of the social graces, but is overflowing with good will and affection. They have learned to put on a false and carefully scripted genuineness, while Myshkin's authenticity throws all this into chaos.

I find Dostoyevsky immensely readable in translation - the two I've read have both been accessible and easy going. I don't know if they were translated by the same person, or not, but these are not books that you have to slog through. The characters are lively and interesting, and the web that poor Myshkin finds himself in often made me worried for him. He is just disconcerting enough, while also being very endearing. But what would a more authentic society look like? If the world were made of Myshkin's, could it survive? (less)

24 likes · like · see review

May 16, 2007 Andrew rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: idiots - know your role, i do

I love this book because it made me think. Hard.

According to my understanding of "The Idiot," Dostoevsky's definition of an idiot is someone who actually believes that everyone is trying to do their best and do no harm. This is in utter ignorance, usually, of everyone's tendencies to do harm to others, regardless of intent. Hooray for idiots!

Ippolit Terentyev, one of the minor characters, is a socialist, and a suicide. He has one of the great lines in literature, I think, and I will share it now...more I love this book because it made me think. Hard.

According to my understanding of "The Idiot," Dostoevsky's definition of an idiot is someone who actually believes that everyone is trying to do their best and do no harm. This is in utter ignorance, usually, of everyone's tendencies to do harm to others, regardless of intent. Hooray for idiots!

Ippolit Terentyev, one of the minor characters, is a socialist, and a suicide. He has one of the great lines in literature, I think, and I will share it now. "We degrade God too much, ascribing to him our ideas, in our vexation at being unable to understand Him." Not verbatim, necessarily, but that's the sense.

Also included in this story is a story about how governments are not scared of atheists, because atheists have no real back-bone. When it comes down to it, if life is the end-all, be-all, then anyone who is sane (having some idea of self-preservation) will break at threats on their life. Whereas if someone believes that there is a payoff greater than life can offer, or better yet, has an internal motivation that comes from somewhere else, he or she is less likely to be afraid of death. What capitalist governments are really scared of is socialists with a moral imperative that drives them to offer something better than the "one-step-out-of-the-cave" animalism of capital. Luckily, anyone who actually believes that they can or should offer anything better will be rendered ineffective by the capital machine. Anyone with this perspective will be unable to function in real life (The Idiot, I forget the main character's name) or will become so stricken with the dichotomy of living in a way that completely contradicts their philosophy that they will eventually kill themselves (Terentyev).

Back to the question of God -- who says that God isn't a kind of mean drunk, watching the folly of man, laughing, falling asleep, sobering up and making things okay for a while? Ha ha. The best thing about life is that it has a begninning and an end. A lot of the stuff in between kind of sucks.(less)

26 likes · like · see review

Mar 15, 2011 Raiya rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: not-completed

هذا الأبله ليسَ أبلهاً ..

أن تقرأ الأبله يعني أن تعيش حياته بتفاصيلها الدقيقة.. أن تتفرغ تماماً.
فكاتب عملاق كديستوفيسكي لا يمكن تجاهله بقراءة روايته بسرعة، بل تأني حتى تسبر أغوار الأحداث.
برأي الشخصي: الرواية دسمة وتحمل معاني كثيرة، فمن مرض بطل القصة النفسي إلى قدرته الخارقة على تحليل الأمور وحل المعضلات وإقتراح الحلول.. تجد مهارة الكاتب في حبك الرواية جيداً وبآلية تجعلك تشعر وكأنك تشاهداً فيلماً إستثنائياً = )

متأكدة بأنني سأعود لإكمال قراءة الرواية لاحقاً..

أنصح طلاب علم النفس ومحبي التفكير العم...more

14 likes · like · see review

Sep 08, 2008 Martine rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: people who like long dialogue and larger-than-life characters

Shelves: continental-european, nineteenth-century, psychological-drama, russian

Are there countries in the world which are more likely to produce depressing literature than others? If so, Russia must be pretty much top of the list. I have yet to read a Russian novel which ends well for all the protagonists. I can only think of a few in which things end well for even a few of the protagonists. And Dostoyevsky of course loves his tragedies. The Idiot is one of them. While it's not as tragic as, say, Crime and Punishment, nearly all of its protagonists come to a sticky end, an...more Are there countries in the world which are more likely to produce depressing literature than others? If so, Russia must be pretty much top of the list. I have yet to read a Russian novel which ends well for all the protagonists. I can only think of a few in which things end well for even a few of the protagonists. And Dostoyevsky of course loves his tragedies. The Idiot is one of them. While it's not as tragic as, say, Crime and Punishment, nearly all of its protagonists come to a sticky end, and as always, they meet plenty of drama and intrigue on their way there. And it's all classical Russian drama and intrigue, which is to say it's full of passion, obsession, sudden mood swings, tantrums and hysterical fits. In short, The Idiot is a book full of histrionics, but I love it, because for one thing, there's something grand about all those huge emotions, and for another, Dostoyevsky is such a good writer that he gets away with making his characters behave like Greek gods. Every time I read a book of his, I come away wishing he had written his own version of Greek mythology. I'm sure it would have been an astonishing read.

As for the book at hand, it's a book about society -- more specifically, about a modern society that is so corrupt and materialistic that a good man simply cannot survive in it. In The Idiot, that good man is Prince Lyov Nikolayevitch Myshkin, who has spent most of his life in a Swiss hospital because of his epileptic fits, and now returns to the country of his youth. Although many people call him an idiot, Myshkin is not actually stupid; he is just innocent and naïve, and likely to forgive those who have trespassed against him as he is sure they meant no harm. Needless to say, there are those who dismiss him as an inconsequential figure or try to take advantage of him, but he also wins over a lot of people with his innate goodness and refusal to think ill of others. He's a Christ-like figure, but was Christ allowed to live in the society he lived in? He wasn't, and neither, sadly enough, is Myshkin, one of Dostoyevsky's more likeable protagonists. Because Russia, to which Dostoyevsky devotes some choice paragraphs, is too jaded for people like him -- too corrupt and too, well, Russian.

But The Idiot is not just a novel about a corrupt society. Ultimately (and this is probably why I like it so much) it's about love. About the different ways in which people love each other. About loving out of pity. About loving against reason. About mad, obsessive, possessive love. About angry love. About humiliating love. About corrupting love and the fear of love. About the things people do for love, the mistakes they make in the name of love, and the love they simply fail to notice because their eyes are directed elsewhere. At the heart of the book is a fascinating love triangle (or is it a quadrangle? or even a pentagon?), which makes it incredibly romantic despite all the ugly stuff that is going on at the same time. It doesn't have a happy-ever-after ending, but there's something terrifically grand and romantic about the ways in which the various lovers end, and I like that. It's realism with a dose of Romanticism with a capital R, and it works.

As always, Dostoyevsky's characterisation is superb. His naïve hero is pitched against a fabulous cast of sophisticated nobles, desperate wannabes, highly strung concubines, passionate schoolgirls, mad stalkers, dramatic nihilists, and so on. Many of the characters are larger than life, yet you somehow believe them, because let's face it, Russia is the kind place that could spawn these people, isn't it? By and large, the characters are well drawn, and if many of them are either unsympathetic or a tad capricious, so be it. There is enough passion, grandstanding and back-stabbing going on between them to keep things interesting, and plenty of twisted love, too.

The only thing I dislike about Dostoyevsky (and the one reason why I'm not giving The Idiot five stars) is his tendency to go off on tangents just when something exciting is about to happen. In The Idiot, he relates the events of an evening, tells us that the hero will have a secret and obviously important meeting with the girl he loves in the morning, and then, rather than relating the events of the next morning in the next chapter, proceeds to spend four chapters (some sixty pages altogether) telling the reader what happens at the Prince's house late at night, none of which has anything to do with the upcoming meeting with the girl. I'm sure I'm not the only reader who felt cheated there. Other than the tangents, though, Dostoyevsky is a superb writer, and The Idiot is as fine an example of classic Russian literature as you're likely to find anywhere (provided you like long dialogue and slightly mad characters). I'd give it 4.5 stars if I could, but in the absence of half stars, four will have to do.

(And for those of you who care about translations: I read the Bantam version by Constance Garnett and was quite happy with it.)(less)

35 likes · like · see review

May 05, 2012 Bryn Hammond rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: novelists

Scoundrels love honest people - did you know that?

I'm going to comment on Part One only; it's a way of avoiding spoilers, and a way of shutting me up. Also, D. wrote Part One and had no idea what he'd do with them next (although that was true throughout the novel's writing, my introduction tells me). The first part is almost a single scene, of 174 pages, as we follow the prince over the course of one day, from the train he arrives at St Petersburg in, a stranger in the city, through his very fas...more Scoundrels love honest people - did you know that?

I'm going to comment on Part One only; it's a way of avoiding spoilers, and a way of shutting me up. Also, D. wrote Part One and had no idea what he'd do with them next (although that was true throughout the novel's writing, my introduction tells me). The first part is almost a single scene, of 174 pages, as we follow the prince over the course of one day, from the train he arrives at St Petersburg in, a stranger in the city, through his very fast involvement in a knot of people's lives, most of them frenetic and about to hit a crisis, to a wild culmination that evening, when he tries to act, to intervene - and fails.

Myshkin is a pauper-prince at the beginning and the idiot of the title. Famously, D. set out with this intention: The main idea of the novel is to portray a positively [or perfectly] beautiful man. There is nothing more difficult in the world and especially now. For past essays he quotes Don Quixote as the most fully realised and Jean Valjean as another strong attempt. He is terribly afraid it will be a downright failure.

The prince is an ex-mental patient straight out of the asylum; he's taken for an idiot at first glance but almost as often loved at once. He's scarcely odd in the head; except, for instance, he's obsessed with capital punishment - as worse, as crueller than murder - after he saw a criminal go to the guillotine in France; he saw and he has imagined since the experience of the condemned, and he talks explicitly on the subject to the newly-met at the drop of a hat. Odd enough; he tells the servant in the anteroom and the family of girls. It's a true charge that D. has snatched an opportunity to tell us intimately what he discovered about capital punishment when he stood within moments of a firing squad. But it suits a saint to be obsessed by; his infinite sympathy and awareness of suffering is his oddity. The prince has D.'s epilepsy too, and D. gets to say most about that in this novel.

Our woman hero is Nastasya F., who has been kept by a rich aristocrat and is in revolt against him. Nastasya is the D. woman who has most fascinated me - his strongest portrait of... I won't say a type, but D. does have his themes. He explores the perversities of hurt people - the self-inflictions of anger at one's treatment, the bizarre behaviour of the humiliated: it's what he's famous for, and when he does that in a glorious woman he admires the hell out of - that's Nastasya. Totsky who has kept her and his set cannot control her - she terrorises them, she wants to have her own back.

Nastasya is coupled with the idiot-saint; she of course is a saint/sinner (who isn't in D.?) I guess it's like Christ meets Mary Magdalene - and devotes his life to her, on the spot, that's the difference in the story, he'd perform his sacrifice to save her alone... not the world. She is greater than he is, as he knows and says. In the madhouse of Part One - it's a madhouse from start to finish (uh, did I leave the asylum, or...?) - she is way bigger than life. And if you don't have a clue what her motives are, consider how important to her it is to be unguessable. Totsky and friends are trying to buy and sell her. She refuses in the only way she has - for she won't be saved at the prince's expense - and flings herself into the abyss. If this sounds melodramatic, it is. D. knows how people like to make a melodrama of their lives; he always wrote psychologically intact melodramas and this might be his worst. Psychologically intact/acute: rubbish words; as we know, D. has understandings of the human you are just unlikely to meet elsewhere. In his beloved areas, 'the insulted and the injured' to quote a title of his, the pride of the downtrodden; one of his fundamental insights (I am scared to talk like this) is that humiliation is the worst thing you can do to a human being.

Then again, his prince is meek, and very hard to humiliate - though he does not lack his dignity and self-respect. More on these questions in parts two, three and four.

(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Jul 30, 2009 Bonnie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed-books, classics, recommended

I read The Idiot while I was in the hospital – in isolation, to be precise. What I remember is that the “idiot”, Prince Myshkin, lived in the moment; and that I became so absorbed in his ability to see good in others – no matter what they did – that I forgot where I was for long periods of time. I remember being very surprised – and thankful – for that. (Hence the 4 stars; not sure what I would give it if I were to read it again!)

20 likes · like · see review

Aug 27, 2012 Janice rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: this-recording, russia

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

13 likes · like · see review

Aug 28, 2012 TarasProkopyuk rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: fiction, socionics, russian

Роман «Идиот» превзошёл мои ожидания, хотя я и ожидал от автора высочайшего литературного мастерства.

И дело не в самом сюжете романа, а как всегда в безупречных сценах, их тончайшей описью, психологических аспектах персонажей и множества важных мелочей. Здесь и взгляды автора на важнейшие человеческие ценности, взгляды на жизнь, отношение к людям, об уважении и сострадании, о любови, о разрушительной ревности, грязные интриги, глупые авантюры и невыносимая агония.

Но кроме всего вышесказанного ст...more

7 likes · like · see review

May 28, 2008 Ameer rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

لئو میشکین آدمی نیست که هر جایی پیدا بشه ولی همه مون فکر می کنیم خیلی شبیهشیم

6 likes · like · see review

May 28, 2012 مجدلية اندروماخي rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: مناسبة لجميع الاعمار فلا مشاهد مخلة فيها غير ان تعقيداتها تستوجب عمقا معرفيا

انا من عشاق الادب الروسي بشكل عام واحب الواقعية فيه..واحب دستويفسكي بشكل خاص وافهم مايريد قوله,,لازلت في بداية الرواية ومتحمسة جدا لهذه الرحلة
********************************
يرى النقاد انها من الروايات الاقوى ولا اتفق معهم بالضرورة,,فلااعتقد انها تصل لمستوى الاخوة كارامازوف.
هذه الرواية اقرب ماتكون مسرحية لكثرة الجلبة وكأني بالشخصيات تحدث الجمهور ولكن بصورة مبهمة
-من الادوار الغير مقنعة هو دور الام ليزافييتا فلاارى تصرفاتها منطقية
في الحقيقة لم تكن تصرفات الامير ميوشكن وحدها الغير منطقية بل معظم ت...more

5 likes · like · see review

Aug 18, 2007 Dianna rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: over-my-head

I liked the other two books I read by this author but I just could not get into this one.

5 likes · like · see review

Apr 01, 2013 lyratheliar rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Prince (knez!) Miškin is an 'ideal hero', a 'godlike creature', good, naive and childish. A saint who never had a chance against the corrupted (russian) society where he was considered an idiot...blah, blah, blah.

I had trouble with this book durring most of my reading. As much as I tried, I couldn't find Miškin 'ideal'. And considering my great respect for Dostoyevsky, I tried hard. And then the continuous plots and the schemes and the misunderstandings...it was like reading a soap opera! wtf? I...more Prince (knez!) Miškin is an 'ideal hero', a 'godlike creature', good, naive and childish. A saint who never had a chance against the corrupted (russian) society where he was considered an idiot...blah, blah, blah.

I had trouble with this book durring most of my reading. As much as I tried, I couldn't find Miškin 'ideal'. And considering my great respect for Dostoyevsky, I tried hard. And then the continuous plots and the schemes and the misunderstandings...it was like reading a soap opera! wtf? I don't even WATCH soap operas and now I'm READING one! (now that I've thought about it, Miškin does remind me much of that Charity character from 'The Passion'-all of Croatia must know about this-they're equally annoying and their 'goodness' makes me want to puke).

At this point Miškin had already fucked everything up and I just wanted to finish the book and give it ONE star, so the whole world (my gr friends, that is) would know it's crap. And then the brilliant Jevgenij Pavlovič happened ^^. He started questioning Miškin's good intentions. Oooooh, how brilliant this was! Like reading all the thoughts that I had in my head, but couldn't put into words. And it hit me! Miškin is one of those self-contented altruists who are always trying to do the 'right' thing, and then expecting the whole world to bow to their humility. And by doing that, he made it all worse. 'Vi ste morali trčati za Aglajom, makar ona druga i ležala onesviješćena!'/'You had to run after Aglaja, even if the other one was lying unconscious!' (I would have said 'even if the other one was dying!') But Miškin was trying to please everyone. To be good to everyone. And that doesn't show his love for other people. It only shows one's love for one-self.

So, I finally decided I liked the book (the ending helped a lot, it was sooo perfectly creepy :)). I decided Dostoyevsky would agree with me on Miškin and I just love when great writers think like me ^^ (yes, it's pretentious, but to hell with it, I'm not trying to please you, and I certainly don't care if you don't consider me a humble person).(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Sep 21, 2008 Bruno-Ken rated it 3 of 5 stars

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 th...more 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. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 26, 2008 Kristina rated it 4 of 5 stars

I love how Dostoevsky's plots are driven not by external circumstances but by the internal workings of his characters' minds, and the choices they make.
There were a few times when I actually slammed my book angrily against a table or wall and yelling "you stupid a** what did you do that for???"...my paperback is now a little worse for wear.

People in this book make stupid choices, and their misery is primarily a result of these stupid choices. "The Idiot" refers not to The Prince's intellectual...more I love how Dostoevsky's plots are driven not by external circumstances but by the internal workings of his characters' minds, and the choices they make.
There were a few times when I actually slammed my book angrily against a table or wall and yelling "you stupid a** what did you do that for???"...my paperback is now a little worse for wear.

People in this book make stupid choices, and their misery is primarily a result of these stupid choices. "The Idiot" refers not to The Prince's intellectual capacity but to his inability to understand and emulate the manipulative, multi-layered social interactions of the society he enters upon returning to Russia. Because everything he does is simple and straightforward, he comes off as an "idiot".

The forward says that this story is often interpeted as a Christ allegory... I have to say I had trouble seeing it. Dostoevsky claims to portray The Prince as a "purely beautful man" - the opposite of his "Crime and Punishment" protagonist. The Prince is almost infuriatingly humble and always apologizing for...sometimes I don't even know what he's apologizing for. Usually he ends up upsetting people for accidentally calling them out on being sleazy by asking what he thinks is an innocent question. So really he has nothing to apologize for but all he can understand is that he's offended someone. What really ticked me off was how at the end, when he actually DID do something stupid, he obviously regretted his decision but still persisted in it, and expected everyone he had hurt to just understand. NO. PRINCE - IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS STUPID, DON'T DO IT. IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT. YOU MADE A BAD CHOICE NOW DEAL WITH IT. End of rant.

While I do really, really love Dostoevsky he has always struck me as having an extremely external locus of control (yay psych 101). Instead of holding his characters responsible for their actions, he seems to feel like some external forces are driving them to misery when clearly it is their own choices and attitudes. It's like a multi-layered psychological study.
I'm done now this review is far too long.
(less)

14 likes · like · see review

Jan 06, 2008 Glen rated it 5 of 5 stars

Another fantastic work by Dostoevsky that takes people from seemingly ordinary circumstances and weaves around them the most intricate webs of moral and ethical dilemma. In The Idiot, the protagonist (Prince Lyov Nikolayevitch Mishkin) is portrayed as a truly good person. The theme of the novel is to examine the question of whether or not a deeply kind individual can actually survive in a world of vice. Myshkin is at all times open hearted about his feelings and honest with all about his convict...more

13 likes · like · see review

Jan 29, 2011 Ruba AlTurki rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

الأبله ،رواية من الأدب الروسي لفيودور دوستويفسكي .
تدعوك الرواية للتفكّر بعمق ، الواقع والمنطق والأخلاق ،سيطرة المجتمع على الفرد والقيود الإجتماعيةالتي جعلت من الصعب على الإنسان التعرّف على المشاعر الحقيقية لمن هم حوله .
أنا وغيري الكثير -على ما أعتقد- يمثلنا "الأبله" حين نفقد السيطرة على الـ"قناع" أو على المظاهر الخارجية .
الترجمة كانت مقبولة نوعاً ما ،تمنيت لو قرأتها بترجمة أخرى أو حتى بالإنجليزية
وأعتقد أن الروايات الروسية عموماً تفقد الكثير بعد الترجمة لأي لغة .

10 likes · like · see review

Nov 14, 2012 Ivana S. rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2012, fiction, from-my-list, great-books, re-read

Brilliant!

Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin comes back to Russia, or to be more exact, to St. Petersburg after spending four years in Swiss sanatorium. He hardly knows anyone from his country and he has only one distant relation to Lizaveta Prokofyevna Yepanchin, so he decides to make acquaintance of her and her family.
On the train journey to Russia he meets Parfyon Semyonovich Rogozhin, a man who tells him about Nastassya Filippovna, femme fatale of St. Petersburg. Prince Myshkin is very intere...more
Brilliant!

Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin comes back to Russia, or to be more exact, to St. Petersburg after spending four years in Swiss sanatorium. He hardly knows anyone from his country and he has only one distant relation to Lizaveta Prokofyevna Yepanchin, so he decides to make acquaintance of her and her family.
On the train journey to Russia he meets Parfyon Semyonovich Rogozhin, a man who tells him about Nastassya Filippovna, femme fatale of St. Petersburg. Prince Myshkin is very interested in the subject from the start. He talks to Rogozhin untill they arrive to the station and it is pretty clear from the start that Nastassya Filippovna will be the reason for drama that obviously awaits the young Prince.

It's hard to summarize what comes after that. All I can say that Prince Myshkin took me to a strange journey through St. Petersburg, as well as Pavlofsk and it's many peculiar residents. It was a real pleasure to meet him and the others (especially Lizaveta Prokofyevna) and to be the witness of their dramatic relationships and actions.
I am still not sure if I liked the Prince or not. At first I felt strongly for him because of his goodness, but as the story went on, I wasn't sure anymore… Lets just say that now I realise where the title came from. Prince was a disaster waiting to happen from the start. I mean, it is obvious that someone so innocent, good and naive can't find their place in the world obsessed with money and power.

F. M. Dostoyevsky is truly the Master of characterization. I am still amazed by his talent to show deepest corners of every single character – it doesn't matter if it's the main character or just one of those who show up in only few chapters.
Some of them are easy to like, others are just people with both good and bad sides, and some of them are the worst examples of those characteristics that most of us despise. Either way, they are all interesting to read about.
After reading three books by Dostoyevsky, I can honestly say that his characters have a certain ''vibe'' that makes them both interesting and unforgettable, and that he truly is one of the best writers ever.
He goes deep and reveales many different types of human behaviour, which is amazing. Every spoken word, every thought, every action is significant not only for knowing what's going on, but for realising why is everything the way it is. It brought me closer to better understanding every character and their actions, but also it made me think about my own attitude toward some aspects of life that Dostoyevsky brought up in this brilliant novel.

The atmosphere surrounding this book is hard to describe in just a few sentences, but it leaves very, very strong impression.
Writing is amazing. I had to take a lot of breaks from reading because it was very detailed. There are so many thoughts and events on every page and I had to let them sink in and try to understand them before moving on. The Idiot is not easy to read, but it's worth the effort. I enjoyed every single part of it.

In this novel Dostoyevsky explored many different subjects of life in general. There is too much to think about and it feels impossible to review it and say everything that needs to be said about it. Life in general, patriotism, nihilism, power, greed, suicide, crime, execution, marriage, friendship, love, human behaviour, different types of characters… The Idiot is a novel about all that, and more.
The ending is great.

Now I'm off to watch the mini series based on The Idiot. If it's even half as good as the book, I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

5 stars!
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Nov 10, 2012 Moira rated it 4 of 5 stars

Idiot je zvláštní kniha, tak nějak něžně nás vede svým obsahem, jemně nám podává střípky příběhu a nenápadně nás vtahuje do svého světa. Představuje nám své protagonisty, opatrně nám nastiňuje děj a nakonec? Nakonec se nám zlomyslně vysmívá, když se dostaneme na konec a jen zaraženě čteme, jak to celé dopadlo. Je plná překvapení, někteří by to možná neřekli, ale opravdu nám předestírá nečekané situace a i v té nejméně poutavé části se dozvídáme tolik informací, že to možná až zaráží. Je to kniha...more Idiot je zvláštní kniha, tak nějak něžně nás vede svým obsahem, jemně nám podává střípky příběhu a nenápadně nás vtahuje do svého světa. Představuje nám své protagonisty, opatrně nám nastiňuje děj a nakonec? Nakonec se nám zlomyslně vysmívá, když se dostaneme na konec a jen zaraženě čteme, jak to celé dopadlo. Je plná překvapení, někteří by to možná neřekli, ale opravdu nám předestírá nečekané situace a i v té nejméně poutavé části se dozvídáme tolik informací, že to možná až zaráží. Je to kniha o hloupé hře pýchy. Místy psána opatrně, jinde s jedovatostí a jízlivým vtipem.

V knize nejde o děj, na čemž tolik visím, ale o postavy, vztahy a psychiku lidí. Je to složitá kniha s příběhy v příbězích, s tolika emocemi a tolika skandály, že to najednou ani nejde celé pojmout. Je to kniha, nad kterou jsem se co chvíli zamýšlela, je to kniha, která sahá až ke kořenům lidských nectností a hříchů.
Idiot je smutná kniha, svým způsobem tragická, vytáhne na světlo možná to nejhorší v nás. Ale ukáže i mnoho hodného. A já ji za to obdivuju.

Dostojevskij splétal příběh díky životům postav. Má jich hodně, postava vedle postavy, každá jiná a svá, neuvěřitelně propracovaná. Takřka každá postava má svůj vlastní kousek slávy, každá se postupem příběhu prohlubuje a vrývá se nám do paměti. Od prostého dobrosrdečného knížete Myškyna, naivního mladíka, který je až příliš důvěřivý a někdy k vzteku ostatních i mě vše odpouštěl a takřka se ponižoval, po sebevědomého a postupem děje čím dál zatrpklejšího Parfena Rogožina.
Vidíme tu vývoj postavy nestálé a možná trochu šílené Nastasji Filippovny, která na mě ze začátku působila možná až trochu nereálně, ale pak jsem prostě jen bezdeše sledovala, co zase vyvede. Také hrdé, ale lehce dětinské Aglaji, která je krásnou a hýčkanou slečinkou a pochází ze ctěné rodiny Jepančinových. Mohla bych tak vyjmenovat tucet postav, které postupem čtení poznáváme a můžu jen žasnou, jak místy dokázal autor bravurně vystihnout takřka zosobnění lidských vlastností. Vztahy a interakce postav je další bod, na který bych mohla pět celou kapitolu chvály. Dodatečně žasnu nad tím, jak pečlivě je ta kniha propracovaná.

Kniha má čtyři na sebe navazující části, a každá část má děj, který pokaždé gradoval k nějaké závěrečné scéně. Pociťovala jsem atmosféru, jedinečnou neopakovatelnou atmosféru situace, tu neskutečnost, hlasité výkřiky i absurditu toho všeho, co se seběhlo. Byly to scény, kdy se sešla větší společnost a byl pak šílený zmazek. Milovala jsem ty scény. Autor pracoval s fantazií a obratností, a dokázal vytvořit opravdu skvělé dílo.
Ze začátku na mě kniha působila spíše jako příběhy v příbězích. V druhé polovině to naopak byly příběhy postav, ale neuvěřitelně umně propleteny a spleteny. Obyčejně čtu skoro ozlomkrk, ale tahle kniha mě tak uchvacovala, že jsem konečně pochopila, co to znamená vychutnávat si knihu.

Někdo by si možná stěžoval na zdlouhavé popisování a na mnohdy ustrnulou společnost tehdejší ruské vyšší vrstvy. Mně se to však neuvěřitelně líbilo. To "zdlouhavé popisování" pro mě bylo spíše rozvíjení postav a jejich propracování, vykreslení problematiky do posledního detailu a osvětlení celé momentální situace. A ustrnulá společnost, nu, ta se nelíbila ani mě, ale dělalo to knihu o to realističtější.

Kniha na mě hluboce zapůsobila, reálie tehdejší doby i kulisy jsou popisovány možná mírně zdlouhavě, ale pečlivě. Postavy jsou tak různorodé a jedinečné, že mám pocit, jako by žily a dýchaly. A jejich vývoj! V jedné jediné knize jsme mohli vidět takový vývoj postav, takový přirozený vývoj postav, že jen smekám, protože je to něco úžasného. Děj nebyl napsán s úmyslem napínat, byl to vlastně takový "komorní příběh", veden umně a citlivě a nakonec vygradoval v něco pro mě naprosto nečekaného.

Je to úžasná kniha, která mě zaujala a přestože se mi nečetla nejlehčeji, můžu ji považovat za jednu z nejlepších prací, jakou jsem četla. Postupem knihy se mi zdálo, že k nám autor čím dál častěji promlouvá pomocí úvah, ale přinášel s tím zároveň takové myšlenky, že jsem mu to ani neměla za zlé. Mrzí mě jen to, že jsem ztratila papír s poznámkami, tudíž vám nemůžu román vykreslit lépe. A, koneckonců, i svůj zápis do čtenářského deníku podám jen polovičatě. Doufám ale, že jsem vás i tak zaujala a někdy se možná i odhodláte si tuto neobyčejnou knihu přečíst. :)(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 29, 2013 MizzSandie rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, annoying-characters, bored-so-bored, dissappointed, meh, recommended-to-me, used-to-own-but-got-rid-of, what-a-waste-of-time, why-is-this-a-classic-why, youre-doing-it-wrong, let-me-edit-that-for-you, please-be-over-soon

If you have been following my status updates, it probably doesn't come as a surprise that I didn't like this book.

Why?

It was boring and uninteresting.
There seemed to be no real point to the story, and if there was, it got lost along the way, in all the tiring dialogues/monologues, all the little gatherings, visits and ‘interviews’ where people got together and had long, dull conversations with seemingly no point, other than to showcase themselves and their opinions, either having trouble getting...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 03, 2011 wally rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: dostoevsky

…great story…having read the brothers karamazov recently, w/those characters still alive in memory, it was maddening to read of them again…maddening in a good way, if such a thing is possible…maddening for all their plots, scheming, planning, and movement about the page.

…it begins early, prince lef nikolayevich muishkin (a kind of don quixote), returns to his native Russia after being treated for an illness in switzerland…. even on the train we see the type of characters (a few anyway) that peop...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 29, 2010 Mad Dog rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: re-read

You could play a drinking game where you take a drink every time someone (during a conversation in this story) "blushes", "trembles", "quivers", "becomes pale", etc. But you would get drunk pretty fast. This is a book full of drama kings and queens. Everybody is so concerned with what 'so and so did' and who 'so and so talked to'. These characters need to center themselves, maybe they all need to attend yoga classes.

I have always stated this as my favorite book (and Dostoevsky as my fave author...more

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 29, 2010 Allison (The Allure of Books) rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, 2010, 1001-list

While I can definitively attest to the fact that The Prince, who the book is named for, is indeed AN IDIOT, I think he can rest easy knowing that he is in good company. Seriously. I think every single personage introduced into the story, whether they only appear briefly or are prominent characters, are as completely off the deep end as The Idiot himself.

For about the first half of the book (give or take), I kinda felt bad for thinking that the Prince was an idiot. Don’t get me wrong, I DID think...more

3 likes · like · see review

Nov 09, 2010 Venus rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: novel

بگذار کسی که اين توضيحات من به دستش افتد و حوصله خواندن آن را داشته باشد مرا ديوانه بشمارد، يا حتی دانش آموزی، يا درست تر از همه محکوم به مرگی به حساب آورد که برايش عادی شده است گمان کند که مردم هيچ يک، به استثنای او، قدر زندگی را نمی داند و عادت کرده اند که اين سرمايه را به آسانی به هدر دهند و با کاهلی و غفلت از آن استفاده کنند و در نتيجه همه تا آخرين شان در خور زنده ماندن نيستند. ولی خوب، اعلام می کنم که خواننده توضيحات اشتباه می کند و يقين من هيچ کاری با مرگ حتمی من ندارد. کافی است از آن ها ب...more بگذار کسی که اين توضيحات من به دستش افتد و حوصله خواندن آن را داشته باشد مرا ديوانه بشمارد، يا حتی دانش آموزی، يا درست تر از همه محکوم به مرگی به حساب آورد که برايش عادی شده است گمان کند که مردم هيچ يک، به استثنای او، قدر زندگی را نمی داند و عادت کرده اند که اين سرمايه را به آسانی به هدر دهند و با کاهلی و غفلت از آن استفاده کنند و در نتيجه همه تا آخرين شان در خور زنده ماندن نيستند. ولی خوب، اعلام می کنم که خواننده توضيحات اشتباه می کند و يقين من هيچ کاری با مرگ حتمی من ندارد. کافی است از آن ها بپرسيد، از يک يک شان بپرسيد، که خوشبختی در چيست؟ اطمينان داشته باشيد که خوشبختی کريستف کلمب زمانی نبود که آمريکا را کشف کرد بلکه زمانی خوشبخت بود که می کوشيد آن را کشف کند. باور کنيد، بالاترين سعادت او شايد سه روز بيش از آن بود که دنيای جديد را کشف کرد، هنگامی که خدمه کشتی اش سرکشی کرده بودند و در نهايت نوميدی می خواستند عقب گرد کنند و به اروپا باز گردند. اينجا صحبت دنيای جديد نيست، حتی اگر قرار بود آنجا مغلوب شود. کريستف کلمب می شود گفت آمريکا را نديده مرد و در حقيقت ندانست کجا را کشف کرده است. اينجا صحبت زندگی است. فقط زندگی. صحبت تلاش در کشف زندگی است و نه در کشف آن، ولی بحث برای چه؟ گمان می کنم که آنچه اينجا می گويم همه به قدری به کلی بافی های بی معنی می ماند که مرا حتما محصلی مبتدی می شمارند که انشايش را درباره طلوع خورشيد می خواند يا می گويند که من شايد گفتنی هايی داشته ام ولی با وجود علاقه ام موفق نشده ام… افکارم را بپرورانم. ولی خوب، اين را هم بگويم که در هر فکر نبوغ نشان يا فکر نو انسانی، يا بگوييم در هر فکر جدی انسانی که در ذهن شما پيدا شود هميشه چيزکی هست که قابل انتقال به غير نيست ولو برای بيان آن کتاب ها بنويسيد، يا سی و پنج سال برای توضيح و القای آن وقت صرف کنيد. هميشه چيزی هست که حاضر نيست از جمجمه شما بيرون آيد و تا آخر ناگفته در ذهن تان باقی می ماند و شما می ميريد و شايد اهم آنچه را در ذهن داريد با خود به گور می بريد. ولی اگر من نتوانسته باشم آنچه را که در اين شش ماه مرا رنج داده است به کمال منتقل کنم دست کم در خواهند يافت که من برای رسيدن به اين يقين واپسين شايد بهای گرانی پرداخته باشم. و اين چيزی است که لازم دانستم، با توجه به بعضی منظورها در اين توضيحات خود بگنجانم(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 09, 2010 Ben rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites, good-fiction, memorable-characters, read-in-2010, romantic-love-and-hate

The Idiot is a remarkable literary feat; a true accomplishment. It not only shows and represents true human complexity, but it births it, both in the inner workings of its passionate characters, and in the overall story. It's replete with patient, mind testing issues that spring the reader’s level of understanding back-and-fourth; yet its emotional intensity is felt throughout. It speaks truth of our striving human conditions; our emotions which only know the truth of their existence in the mome...more

47 likes · like · see review

Apr 17, 2009 Ben rated it 5 of 5 stars

The saddest of Dostoevsky's major novels.

Whether it is or isn't meant to be a Christ allegory, to read it in that light creates some very interesting juxtapositions. There certainly are many, many references to Christ all throughout the book.

I find very interesting the conjecture that if Christ returned in modern times (or the 1860's), he would get eaten alive, even by those who claimed to follow his teachings.

Although I guess Christ didn't fare too well in his own times, either.

I had been forew...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 14, 2008 Jed rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Anyone

Recommended to Jed by: My dad

Crazy about this book. I was sad to finish it.

It's been said that the character of the Prince is "Christ-like" and he is. Long-suffering, kind, gentle and given to "saving" people. It's easy, then, to make or call him a Christ figure or symbol, but I'm not keen to go that far. While I agree that his characteristics are Christ-like in that they enact His teachings, I'm not ready to accept the overwhelming futility of the Prince's actions in Petersburg as a symbol of Christ and His life or mission...more Crazy about this book. I was sad to finish it.

It's been said that the character of the Prince is "Christ-like" and he is. Long-suffering, kind, gentle and given to "saving" people. It's easy, then, to make or call him a Christ figure or symbol, but I'm not keen to go that far. While I agree that his characteristics are Christ-like in that they enact His teachings, I'm not ready to accept the overwhelming futility of the Prince's actions in Petersburg as a symbol of Christ and His life or mission. While His teachings are trampled under foot at every hand, Christ as a man was not the "Idiot" as portrayed here. He was not servile, weak-minded or foolish as Myshkin often was. Lovable and sweet as I found the Prince, I cannot accept him as a symbol of the savior. My friend Bradley said, and I agree with him (as I tend to agree with most of what he says) that Alyosha Karamazov was better in that role.

It's a lovely illustration, however, of the effect that The Word can and does have on people. Lovely and sad. While only a handful of characters commit a sin of any gravity, the Petersburg described is an evil place, and the poor Prince is drown in it, it seems, with his hands tied behind his back. While he never gives in to the evil around him, he is ultimately destroyed by it. One can't say that he had no effect on the people he met, but he certainly had limited influence. Which is what makes it so sad. The Prince's undying kindness and gentle tolerance of his wicked friends was always seen as what made him an Idiot.

Which isn't, I'm sure, a lot different from the way many people see Christ's earthly ministry: Lovely and sad. But I "personally" do not see Him that way, nor do I see his mission as futile. His death (destruction) was not a result of a failed attempt to save, rather, his death was his own sacrifice-- totally within his control. And it was that sacrifice that saved us. There are many things we can and should feel in the face of the Savior's story. Pity is not one of them.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

Sep 11, 2008 bup rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2008, audiobook, classic, 1001, novel

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This is the most confusing book I've ever read. I'm sure it's my fault, because it's a dense book. By the end I could keep most of the characters straight.

Here's what I got: some guy (our hero) comes to Russia on a train and meets a nasty guy who just became rich. In Russia, he goes and meets a general and talks about how he was treated for epilepsy and some people think he's an idiot. The general has a family and a portrait of some woman.

The woman in the portrait burns some money to test some g...more

5 likes · like · see review

Aug 19, 2008 Cheryl Terrel rated it 4 of 5 stars

While it seems that most literary critics have dubbed Prince Lev Nikolayevitch Myshkin (the idiot) Dostoyevsky's Russian savior*, it seems far more likely to me that Dostoyevsky is using Myshkin as an allegory for would-be saviors who are too naive, too indecisive, weak rather than meek, foolish rather than wise, full of intellectual idealism without prudence and all-in-all completely incapable of doing what they propose. If Dostoyevsky intends the prince to be a savior, he either sees no hope f...more

3 likes · like · see review

Mad Dog To the point and Well Said. I like the Myshkin character very much, but I agree with you that he has been 'oversold' by some critics and even Dostoevs...more
Jun 29, 2010 03:17pm

wally i read that prince (lef in my kindle version) is a kind of don quixote and having only read cervantes great story a week or days earlier, yeah, i can...more
Jan 03, 2011 04:11am

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Is there any point in reading further?	21	197	Feb 06, 2013 08:11am
What do you think about "the idiot"?	7	101	Jan 03, 2013 04:02am
Do you think Prince Myshkin ever felt 'romantic' love?	21	184	Nov 26, 2012 10:59am
DoStummerevsky! a...: The Idiot	2	17	Aug 04, 2012 02:35pm

combine
Other Editions (361)

More editions...

Videos About This Book

Add a comment

Genres

Classics

1,202 users

Cultural > Russia

451 users

Literature

274 users

Literature > Russian Literature

223 users

Novels

118 users

Literature > 19th Century

68 users

Philosophy

60 users

Classics > Classic Literature

46 users

Literary Fiction

40 users

Historical Fiction

34 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) was a Russian novelist, journalist, and short-story writer whose psychological penetration into the human soul had a profound influence on the 20th century novel.

Dostoevsky was the second son of a former army doctor. He was educated at home and at a private school. Shortly after the death of his mother in 1837 he was sent to S...more Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) was a Russian novelist, journalist, and short-story writer whose psychological penetration into the human soul had a profound influence on the 20th century novel.

Dostoevsky was the second son of a former army doctor. He was educated at home and at a private school. Shortly after the death of his mother in 1837 he was sent to St. Petersburg, where he entered the Army Engineering College. Dostoevsky's father died in 1839, most likely of apoplexy, but it was rumored that he was murdered by his own serfs. Dostoevsky graduated as a military engineer, but resigned in 1844 to devote himself to writing. His first novel, Poor Folk appeared in 1846.

That year he joined a group of utopian socialists. He was arrested in 1849 and sentenced to death, commuted to imprisonment in Siberia. Dostoevsky spent four years in hard labor and four years as a soldier in Semipalatinsk, a city in what it is today Kazakhstan.

Dostoevsky returned to St. Petersburg in 1854 as a writer with a religious mission and published three works that derive in different ways from his Siberia experiences: The House of the Dead , (1860) a fictional account of prison life, The Insulted and Injured, which reflects the author's refutation of naive Utopianism in the face of evil, and Winter Notes on Summer Impressions, his account of a trip to Western Europe.

In 1857 Dostoevsky married Maria Isaev, a 29-year old widow. He resigned from the army two years later. Between the years 1861 and 1863 he served as editor of the monthly periodical Time, which was later suppressed because of an article on the Polish uprising.

In 1864-65 his wife and brother died and he was burdened with debts. His situation was made even worse by his gambling addiction. From the turmoil of the 1860s emerged Notes from the Underground, a psychological study of an outsider, which marked a major advancement in Dostoevsky's artistic development.

In 1867 Dostoevsky married Anna Snitkin, his 22-year old stenographer. They traveled abroad and returned in 1871. By the time of The Brothers Karamazov (1879-80), Dostoevsky was recognized in his own country as one of its great writers.(less)

More about Fyodor Dostoyevsky...

Books by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Idiot

9 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Idiot

“Beauty will save the world” — 269 people liked it

“Don’t let us forget that the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent explanations of them.” — 224 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Idiot
avg rating	preview: The Idiot Goodreads rating: 4.12 (38170 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12505.The_Idiot?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327865902l/12505.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12505.The_Idiot?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoyevsky[/url]

The Idiot

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website