Tracy’s Comments (group member since Dec 25, 2017)

Tracy’s comments from the The Idiot by Dostoevsky group.

I may be reviving this forum.

What is definite is that I am teaching a community ed course for adults on The Idiot beginning in September 2020 on Zoom (via Lexington Community Education in Massachusetts). Given that Zoom is not locality-specific, students from anywhere can sign up for it at lexingtoncommunityed.org once the fall schedule is posted, probably in August 2020.

The course will meet for 8 weeks on Zoom, on Fridays, 12:30-2:30pm edt. I don't know what the cost will be yet but will probably be something like $160 (for 16 hours of classtime)

Tracy Marks in Arlington, Massachusetts

Announcements pertaining to continuing discussion and my course/courses on The Idiot and Russian literature

I've postponed reading and discussing the last two volumes of The Idiot until some unknown date in the future, but other people can post if they wish. In the meantime, I do hope to recruit more people who will be active participants - maybe in 2019.
Tracy

Epilepsy was a big part of Dostoevsky's own life, and undoubtedly contributed to his own intensity and "living on the edge" characters, so he probably could identify most with Myshkin if he gave him epilepsy. Maybe Dostoevsky meant Myshkin to be Dostoevsky-like in some respects but also more Christ-like like Dosto's ego ideal.

I think the lower part of Myshkin's body is Rogozhin!

See the new QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION thread at top of this forum for several dozen questions for discussion on books one and two.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Books 1 and 2
continued from previous post

23. How do you understand Nastassya’s expression of admiration for Myshkin, combined with her refusal to marry him, her running off with Rogozhin, and yet her lack of commitment to him? What about her odd behavior regarding Evgeny Radomsky?
24. Comment on the statement: Many of Dostoevsky’s characters seem to live on the edge, suffering from sudden volcanic eruptions from their unconscious self – in some ways an emotional corollary to epilepsy.
25. Some critics regard Myshkin as possessing compassion but not passion, and Rogozhin as expressing passion but not compassion. But regarding some beliefs and experiences, Myshkin is passionate. How so?

26. Would you consider Myshkin a helper in a positive sense or a meddler or both? Why?
27. When I imagine a picture of Myshkin, I see only the upper half of a person, with everything below waist level missing. In what ways does this make sense?
28. How might General Ivolgin’s (“stolen”) story about throwing a lit cigar and a dog out the window reflect Dostoevsky’s conflict about one’s “fiery passions” and one’s “animal self”?
29. How is or isn’t Myshkin like the hapless knight or Don Quixote?

30. Comment on how the theme of facing death (a key influence in Dostoevsky’s life) occurs in several ways in the book -- the experience Myshkin narrates about the person reprieved from death, the symbolic “death” of Myshkin’s (and Dostoevsky’s) epileptic attacks, Ippolit dying. How are these experiences similar or different?
31. Do you think that Burdovsky was guilty of deception or an innocent victim of his lawyer, his cohorts or gossip about his father? Why?

32. Why might Rogozhin have chosen to exchange crucifixes with Myshkin and sought to bond with him, while simultaneously feeling jealous and murderous toward him?
33. What significance does the uninspiring painting of the dead Christ have?
34. So far in your reading, what do you think Dostoevsky’s message might be about the character of Myshkin? Is he presenting Myshkin as a positive or negative role model, or a little of both? How so?

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Books 1 and 2
continued from previous post

15. Early in the book, Myshkin narrates his experience with Marie, and how he helped children respond lovingly to her. In what ways does this incident illuminate Myshkin’s behavior?
16. In what ways are Myshkin’s interactions with others characterized by the Jungian concepts of “shadow” and “bright shadow”?
___________________________________________
Psychological concepts that help in understanding Myshkin:
(Freud and Jung)
projection – a psychological theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. Often as a result of projection, they may be drawn to people who express their own denied feelings, thoughts and behaviors.
(Carl Jung)
shadow –an unconscious aspect of oneself which the conscious ego does not identify, usually associated with the “dark side” of oneself – dark because not illuminated by the light of consciousness and because it is most often used to refer to negative qualities
bright shadow or golden shadow - the facet of the shadow related to positive qualities which we deny in ourselves and admire in others
______________________________________

17. How do the concepts of agape (universal love) and eros (erotic love) relate to Myshkin and Rogozhin, and their inability to fully grasp the others’ feelings and motives?
18. Comment on Myshkin’s response the Ganya hits him, and Myshkin withdraws, covering his face and crying out, “Oh how ashamed you will be afterwards.” How would most people respond, and what conclusion can we draw about Myshkin regarding his response?
19. In book two, Lizabeta says to Myshkin, “Aren’t you ashamed to deal with such worthless people?” Aglaya’s reaction is similar to her mother’s – they judge him for lacking the same quality. Clearly Lizabeta and Aglaya have different responses regarding shame than Myshkin. How so?

20. How would you characterize Lizabeta and her daughter Aglaya?
21. Dostoevsky’s portrayals of his key female figures are all similar in some ways. What qualities do Lizabeta Evanchin, Aglaya and Nastassya have in common?
22. How do you understand Nastassya and her erratic behavior?

continued in next post

BOOKS ONE AND TWO

THE IDIOT by Dostoevsky, books one and two
Questions for Reflection: A Psychological Approach by Tracy Marks

1. How might Myshkin and Rogozhin reflect Dostoevsky dualistic experience and symbolically be two parts of the same person?
2. How are Myshkin and Nastassya similar?
3. Why do you think that Myshkin is drawn to magnetically to both Nastassya and Rogozhin?
4. What are some of Myshkin’s positive qualities?
5. What are his deficiencies, which cause conflicts for himself and others?

6. In creating Myshkin, Dostoevsky was attempting to portray a truly “beautiful person”. Do you believe that Myshkin really a good and beautiful person? Why or why not?
7. What are some of the reactions people might have to a very pure, self-effacing, generous person such as Myshkin?
8. Why do you think he has such a strong influence on other people?
9. In what ways might he bring out the worst in people rather than the best?
10. What positive influence does he have on others?

11. Why is Myshkin so drawn to suffering people?
12. Myshkin seems to lack healthy self-protective defenses which would lead him to make healthier choices regarding his companions. What might a healthier way be for Myshkin to deal with such persons as Nastassya, Rogozhin, Lebedev and Aglaya?
13. Speculate – How might Myshkin’s early life influences – being orphaned, having had (possibly) a violent father, being taken under the wing of the upright Pavlischev, raised by two elderly single ladies etc., having epilepsy – have contributed to who he is now and why he acts the way he does?
14. How might Myshkin’s altruistic and Christlike behaviors be in part an attempt to redeem himself?

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

I will be posting here questions for discussion (mostly psychological in nature) that I've prepared for my in-person discussions of The Idiot.

Lizabeta seems to take everything personally - to act as if Myshkin behaves in ways she doesn't approve of that he is assaulting her. When Myshkin shows him Burdovsky's apologetic letter, she gets furious again - maybe because she believes it's a lie and Myshkin is being taken in again. When she gets angry, she overdoes it, with threats - like in this case, don't ever visit me again.

If I were Myshkin, I'd want to get away from all of them too, especially when they keep saying what they don't mean, changing their minds, and treating him in totally contradictory ways. Lizabeta and Aglaya are truly crazymaking, but I think that Lizabeta is more direct and sincere and likeable and not really a gameplayer like Aglaya is.

Lizabeta understands Aglaya's gameplaying - that Aglaya's forbidding Myshkin to visit means she wants him to visit. So suddenly Lizabeta does a turnaround and wants Myshkin to visit, apparently because she knows Aglaya wants to see him. Oyvey.
Myshkin, if you aren't crazy now, you're going to be if you keep hanging out with these unpredictable unstable people. He already fears that Nastassia is crazy but many of the other characters in this menagerie aren't very well-grounded and stable themselves.

And why has Varya brought about corresponce between Aglaya and Nastasya? What's that about?

No wonder Myshkin is experiencing more longings to leave these people.

Anybody out there willing to write a few comments on the final chapters of book two?

Lizabeta like her daughter Aglaya has strong contradictory feelings toward Myshkin. She views him as a friend and likes him but also considers him an idiot and also insults him. She is concerned that Myshkin might want to marry Aglaya and is determined that this not occur. Why? Myshkin has money. But Lizabeta's pride may lead her to not want her daughter to marry "an idiot". Or could Myshkin's health and epilepsy be a reason and part of the meaning of "idiot"?

But she like Aglaya is bothered by everyone making a fool of him, and she believes that he is easily deceived. Is he? Was Burdovsky indeed innocent and deceived himself? I'm not so sure that Myshkin is deceived, but it's clear that he's overly generous to those who are taking advantage of him.

For some reason, she doesn't want Aglaya to marry Evgeny either. And she doesn't trust Ganya.

Nastassia's behavior in regard to Evgeny is a mystery. We can only assume that for some reason she wants to create an obstacle between Evgeny and Aglaya. Does she want to make Aglaya's life difficult because of jealousy? Gen. Epanchin thinks that for some reason Nastassia is striking out at him, but why on earth would her incongruous comment to Evgeny have anything to do with Epanchin? This doesn't seem likely.

Meanwhile Myshkin is getting worn out by the melodramas around him and wants to leave this chaos. But he thinks doing so is cowardly. Why I ask, is it cowardly? He seems to think he should put up with any amount of unpleasantness toward him rather than protect himself by avoiding toxic people and situations.

Also in chapter 11, Keller tells his life story to Myshkin, who knows that Keller is after money, but also senses in Keller some feelings of sincerity that aren't mercenary. I'm not sure what the reference is to the "duality of ideas" but it may have to do with the fact that the people around him often have dual or mixed motives.

For some unclear reason, Myshkin doesn't want to hear what Leb has to say about Aglaya. Maybe he's tired of all the gossip.

Kolya is wise for his age. He tells Myshkin that Myshkin's being a philanthropist - overly generous - is dangerous. He may be referring to dangerous to his (Myshkin's) own wellbeing, which is likely, or dangerous to others or both. In regard to dangerous to others - maybe it brings out the worst in them.

On chapter 10 --
Lizabeta is sympathetic to Ippolit's plight and I wonder if Dostoevsky means for us to feel sympathetic toward Ippolit, but I certainly don't. His denunciation of Myshkin seems completely unfair, especially because Myshkin has been generous despite being mistreated.

Why do you think Ippolit hates Myshkin - and in fact says he hated him before he even met him? Is it Myshkin seems privileged to him, whereas he is dying? Clearly, he's projecting al of negative qualities onto Myshkin.

But he also feels ashamed - because he too was duped into believing Burdovsky was P's son, and he's proud and identified with his intelligence, which he feels was just demeaned? But Myshkin didn't do anything at all to put him down. I have difficulty understanding Ippolit's misguided hatred here, apart from him simply needing a target for his anger at the world.

In this chapter too, Lizabeta expresses her own anger at Myshkin: "Aren't you ashamed to deal with such worthless people? I'll never forgive you." She sure takes his behavior personally. She and Aglaya have quite weak boundaries and can't tolerate Myshkin not conforming to their desires and expectations.

At the end of this chapter, Nastassia appears in her carriage and creates a scene to embarrass Evgeny. We can only speculate why. Does she not want Evgeny to be courting Aglaya because she's interested in him herself? Because she resents Aglaya for some reason such as Aglaya's interest in Myshkin? We will learn her reasons later.

I think Nancy asked awhile back why Myshkin puts up with these untrustworthy people. And I find myself asking the same question.

Clearly, he didn't know anyone when he returned to Russia, and made connection with his distant relative, Lizabeta and family. So he was drawn into their world. But Rogozhin and Lebedev he met on the train and he didn't have to welcome them into his life. Given his ability to talk easily to strangers, he could have made healthier connections during both his returns to Russia.

My understanding is that he doesn't have a strong self-protective function in regard to who he lets in his life, and that he's motivated more by simple go-with-the-flow acceptance and being drawn somewhat magnetically to sympathizing with suffering and unstable people. This may be his biggest flaw - not that he's too good, but that he's good to people who are incapable of fully appreciating him and treating him well and responding in kind.

Maybe he's used to being treated like a leper or "sickie" himself and doesn't have much experience around healthy people (assuming there are more healthy, stable people around - General Evanchin may be the most sane).

I remember how when I was in my 20s, as a result of coming from an abusive family, I was drawn to people for certain qualities in and of themselves like their intellect or physical appearance without concern for how they treated me. I didn't value myself enough. As I grew to value myself, I learned to choose to form relationships with people who were truly good for me emotionally, even if they weren't particularly physically attractive or intelligent. To do otherwise, can be an invitation to be stepped on, used, mistreated....which can further threaten one's self-esteem and well-being.

Myshkin hasn't learned this lesson and is likely to suffer more as a result.

In chapter 9, we experience Ganya as competent - an effective investigator and speaker. It's my impression that we are to agree with Ganya and Myshkin that Burdovsky himself honestly believed he was P's son -- but the Evanchin's clearly think that the Burdovsky and gang are all crooks.

Although I like Lizabeta (she has truly sympathy - toward Myshkin, toward Ippolit), maybe in part because she was so well-played in the film, her sudden changes of mood are unsettling. In fact, Dostoevsky is portraying very unstable female characters - Nastassya, Aglaya, Lizabeta - all with sudden mood changes, and loud-mouthed mocking, insulting behavior.

Lizabeta and Aglaya seem really attached to Myshkin being who they want him to be -- asserting himself loudly and forcefully, and certainly not being sympathetic to those in need who aren't honest or don't, in their opinion, deserve his generosity. Lizabeta here seems to take Myshkin's behavior personally and rails against him.

Myshkin had thought that lawyer Chebarov was guilty of fraud, convincing Burdovsky of his rights in order to get money from legal fees, but Ganya clarifies that this isn't true. Pavlevschev was so partial to young Burdovsky, whom he helped support, that many people - including Burdovsky - believed that B was P's son.

Doesn't Myshkin seem overly apologetic here -- for assuming that fraud was involved? And Lizabeta seems to be even more furious at Myshkin than the others who were behind the infamous letter that so maligned Myshkin. Clearly, she views the Burdovsky gang as dishonest rabble but she's more angry at Myshkin for putting up with them (and being willing to help Burdovsky) than she is at them for trying to milk him for money.

For discussion of book 3, chapters 3-4

For discussion of the first two chapters of book three.

In chapter 8, we see other indications of Lebedev's unreliability and untrustworthiness. On the one hand, he's host to Prince Myshkin (maybe not out of liking though so much as payment for a room!), on the other hand he seems to take pleasure in the scandal of the letter and Burdovsky and gang.

Myshkin here is much more insightful and shrewd than in the Russian film in which he comes across more as a naive innocent. He sees through the deception and is aware that many people are trying to take advantage of him because of his inheritance.

But doesn't react with temper the way some of the other characters do. He is more in control of his emotions. He simply states his reactions and the facts as he knows them. And he certainly is capable of asserting himself. He just doesn't have tantrums the way Aglaya and Lizabeta do.

It seems that many of Dostoevsky's characters are at the mercy of their raw emotions and that their civilized veneer is quite thin.
Tolstoy on the other hand portrays characters who act with more civility and are more in the control of their emotions.

What some people might question is Myshkin's decision to make "a charitable donation" to Burdovsky, given that he believes that Burdovsky is a victim here, who genuinely believes that he is Pavlischev son. But is this true? Is he? And if not, is Myshkin too much of a softie here?

In chapter 7, Aglaya's reading of The Hapless Knight is confusing. On the one hand, she seems serious and to respect the commitment to the ideal of this Hapless Knight (Myshkin) but on the other hand she makes fun of him by changing the initials to Nastassia.

Aglaya's attitude toward Myshkin also seems ambivalent. She seems to like and admire his basic goodness, but to scorn him for not being as assertive as she wishes he would be when the the Pavlishchev's-supposed-son contingent arrives.

For discussion of the final chapters of Book two, chapters 11-12