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

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

For discussion of Book II, chapters 9-10

Dostoevsky said he created Myshkin to be a kind of Don Quixote but serious, not comical --- and Aglaya uses almost those words when referring to the "Hapless Knight" or "poor knight", a Pushkin poem apparently modelled on Don Quixote". Quite obviously, she is thinking of Myshkin - though Lizaveta doesn't get it.

Aglaya appears to be genuinely serious when she says she admires a man with conviction and vision, dedicated to his ideals but she changes the initials Ave Mater Dei (AMD) meaning Hail Mother of God (the Knight devoted to the Virgin Mother Mary) to A.N.B. which some commentaries refer to a Nastassia's initials.

But they aren't Nastassia's initials. I checked back at the beginning of the first chapter, where we learned that Nastasya's name is Nastasya Filioppovna Barashkova which is N.F. B. That's not the same as A.N.B. (what would be A. stand for?) though we might consider the N.B. to be Nastassia Barashkova. But would the average reader have figured this out?

One way or another, if Aglaya is referring to Mishkin's crush on Nastassya and maybe making fun of him, it seems odd that she would do so in the middle of a serious statement about admiring serious DQ-type characters. Or was she being serious when she referred to the kind of man she admired? I think so.

In book one, Myshkin said that Lizabeta Evanchin is like a child - and someone else - I don't remember who refers to Myshkin as childlike at some point. I'm not sure what the associations they mean by child - what do you think? Innocence, naivete, saying whatever is on one's mind, lack of thinking about consequences of one's actions, playfulness?

In these chapters though focused on Rogozhin's violence, Mishkin's epileptic fit and the aftermath (the most dramatic part so far), I don't think we see the childlike side of Mishkin. He actually seems saner than most of these other characters that swarm around him. Aglaya is certainly childlike in regard to her tendency to have temper tantrums and be rude and nasty.

Rogozhin, Aglaya and Nastassia all seem unstable. I really like Lizabeta though - she and Myshkin were my favorite characters in the Russian film, and they also are as I read the book. She also genuinely cares about Myshkin - but like most of the other females in the novel, she is quick to speak rudely and critically when he doesn't behave as she wants him to behave.

I got it on Netflix but on dvd. It's called The Idiot. But maybe they don't have it available by streaming. (I still have it out on dvd). I just looked it up on Netflix dvd site. The listing says:

The Idiot 1951 NR 2hr 46m
Masayuki Mori stars as Kinji Kameda, a war veteran who was sentenced to death and then pardoned, in Akira Kurosawa's adaptation of the novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, which relocates the story from Russia to the snow-covered island of Hokkaido, Japan. Recently released from an asylum, the fragile Kameda descends further into madness when he becomes entangled with two women (Setsuko Hara and Yoshiko Kuga) and an old friend (Toshirô Mifune).

In order to keep the names straight, I made a list:
Kameda - Myshkin
Akama - Rogozhin
Taeko Nasu - Nastassya
Tohato - Nastassya's "keeper"
The Onos - the Epanchins (in this case, General Ono is the
relative, not the wife)
Kayama - Ganya
Ayako - Aglaya

It doesn't include all the characters in the book. I'm not sure there's a Lebedev or all of Aglaya's sisters. I'm afraid I suffer from the American racist attitude of "all Asians look alike" but am getting better at telling them apart. The Japanese version of Nastassya is not particularly attractive in my opinion and seems more sensitive than Nastassya in the book - she's reduced to tears of appreciation by Myshkin.

A few more thoughts about chapter 5:

Dostoevsky wrote, "As for the Prince, it was next to impossible to love the woman carnally." I wonder her if Dostoevsky is implying that the Prince is incapable of sexual intercourse (maybe because he lacks physical passion) or he might be incapable with Nastassya. If the latter, why? What do you all think?

We also see that he's incapable of understanding Rogozhin because he doesn't "get" Rogozhin's animal passion and projects his own compassion onto his expectation of Rog (rogue) ozhin. He believes that Rogozhin will eventually be led by compassion rather than passion toward Nastassya but there's nothing in R's behavior that would lead us to believe so.

Chapters 5-6 are dramatic chapters.
In chapter 5, Dostoevsky explains Myshkin's experience of epilepsy, which is probably his own experience. I found this particularly interesting because although I don't have epilepsy, I have seizures the vagus nerve which lead me to pass out and go unconscious for a time (massive doses of gabapentin now limits them to about once a month).

Unfortunately I don't have the ecstatic experience of clarity described here - only an increasing state of confusion and disorientation which can be embarrassing publicly, and which I'm not aware of until it's likely to be noticeable to others. Once I'm aware of it, I know I have to leave whatever situation I'm in, and it's not safe to drive and there's less than 15 minutes before I"ll lose consciousness. So I've spent countless nights unconscious in my car, twice when it was way below freezing outside, and once when a blizzard started. No fun.

Anyway, here we have Myshkin in a pre-seizure state, which Dostoevsky describes very well. He's wandering around, absentminded, following impulse, not really thinking about the promise he made not to go see Natassia - he has to see her.

We might think he's delusional about Rogozhin stalking him but Rogozhin is -- and we can only wonder if his Myshkin's epileptic fit saved him being killed or seriously injured.

I just started watching the Japanese adaptation of The Idiot which I got from Netflix. ("Masayuki Mori stars as Kinji Kameda, a war veteran who was sentenced to death then pardoned in Akira Kurosawa's adaption which relocated the story from Russia to the snow-covered island of Hokkaido, Japan.")

It really is based on The Idiot, though the characters are Japanese and there are some small variations in it. I've only watched 45 minutes of it but so far I've noted several differences. One is Nastassya inviting Mishkin to her party (I guess the Japanese would view him appearing uninvited to be just too rude!.

The other is him telling the story of his own being reprieved from dying at the last moment. He was entranced with her eyes, and told her that they were like the eyes of the young man ahead of him who was shot. She was in tears listening to him, then said she trusted him and asking him who she should marry. This Nastassya so far seemed more sensitive and less mocking than Dostoevsky's Nastassya.

It's nearly three hours long, apparently with each book of the novel somewhat corresponding to about 45 minutes of the film (though apparently book one takes up more of the film).

Maybe others of you can get it -
Meanwhile you might want to watch the beginning episodes of the Russian mini-series online at Youtube.

For discussion of book 2, chapters 7-8

It's my impression that the Prince has not integrated his own "lower" energies - anger, sexuality, jealousy, resentment etc. He is a higher nature who hasn't come to terms with the lower and so is drawn to it, like people drawn to (and repelled by) people who express their own shadow side or who live in close proximity to it. Much of the interactions in this book can be interpreted in Jungian terminology!

Many of Dostoevsky's characters are rude, or express undisciplined passions, unlike Tolstoy whom I think more often presents us characters who at least have the veneer of civilized behavior.

Given all the wild "primitive" energies wreaking havoc in the world today, I think Dostoyevsky is most relevant to our times --and that we have to acknowledge and come to terms with our own undisciplined wild not socially acceptable feelings and impulses in order for their to be better cooperation in the world.

To me, it seems that Dostoyevsky turns many of his characters inside out, so there seams are on the outside. But whether they have a fine veneer on the inside or are just ragged seams through and through is to be determined -- I fear that some are just ragged seams!

Nancy - I pay for a digital subscription to the NYTimes. It's worth it. Otherwise I think you only get 5 articles a month (I had to choose between the Boston Globe and chose the NYT).
I saved that article in Word so if you want a copy let me know by email.

Glad to hear from you, Nancy!!
That's a nice way to explain - Nastassya as the glue. She is in any case a connecting force and one that increasingly creates tension between the two of them!

You might enjoy this very long article from a recent NY Times magazine
A LITERARY ROADTRIP INTO THE HEART OF RUSSIA, LAND OF TURGENEV AND TOLSTOY
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/ma...

The translation I am reading refers to the Prince's feelings toward Nastassya as compassion. But a brief analysis I read of this chapter refers to his feelings as pity. This brings up an issue I've been aware of for quite a while - the difference between pity, sympathy, compassion and empathy. I type those in that order because in that order they seem to reflect different stages of connection, from looking down at someone in a distantly caring but condescending way to fully joining them in their feeling from more of a position of equality and internal connection.

At some point I read that one or more European languages don't have a word for empathy separate from the word for sympathy. I think German is one, but I'm not sure. I think this is significant because it reflects less entering of another person's experience.
Pity involves distancing and superiority; empathy, closeness and equality. Sympathy I think is somewhere in the middle.

Gosta, what about Swedish? And the other languages you know, since you know several. I think this distinction is important and would really like to know how it is reflected in a number of languages.

In regard to compassion, I would put that on the same level as sympathy, but not quite as deep as empathy. Or maybe between sympathy and empathy. It seems to me that there's still a bit of hierarchy in sympathy - that the sympathetic person feels himself to be in a superior position to the empathic person, but without the judgment of pity.

So what does Myshkin feel toward Nastassya? Not pity, but not empathy either - he's not in touch with her feeling experience. Compassion seems to be the right word here.

On the one hand Myshkin is very perceptive about Rogozhin ("your love is indistinguishable from your hatred") yet on the other hand he doesn't understand him - and vice versa. Myshkin feels compassion but doesn't seem to have passion (except for some of his beliefs) and appears to be quite sexless.

Rogozhin has little capability for passion, and related to the world in terms of passion - desire, jealousy, possessiveness. He therefore can't conceive that Myshkin's feelings for Nastassya are much different than his. He has not evolved to a level in which he can grasp Myshkin's feelings.

Myshkin asks R, "Don't you want to earn her respect?" but I doubt that R has any concept of respect either - or self-respect. Neither does Nastassya. Rogozhin and Nastassya both have wild, erratic temperaments.

Gosta, as you read The Idiot, are you relating Wilber's developmental levels to these characters? Rogozhin is clearly in the RED sphere - indeed his dark nearly black apartment is painted red inside. Red according to Wilber is primitive, narcissistic.

At first it may appear that Myshkin is in the blue but I think he's broken green (with maybe some orange?). He hasn't integrated but rather has projected his lower nature.

How do you think the characters of the Idiot reflect Wilber's developmental levels?

Chapter 3 is a very rich chapter - there are so many clues here in regard to the characters of M&R. A lot of things in this chapter stand out for me -

R's "unconcealed enmity, "nasty smirk" and "glaring eyes" all suggest that he's a dangerous personality. A healthy person would avoid him, but Myshkin is not a healthy integrated person. He is clearly drawn to danger, and people who have the potential to hurt him.

I'm not sure that his honesty is so wise either, with a character like R. Why does he tell R that Nastassya begged him to rescue her from R? That isn't likely to soothe R's jealousy, but rather to enflame. M may be honest, but he either doesn't think of the consequences of what he says, or doesn't care.

Myshkin's unconsciously picking up Rogozhin's knife and toying with it seems to me to be an expression of his own unconscious - how he is drawn to Rogozhin's qualities while not approving of them. Some part of him is inclined to "toy" with aggression.

We also see that Myshkin is surprised and disbelieving at first that N would run away to an officer in Moscow, and that R would beat Nastassya. Some part of him want to deny their dark side and think the best of them. And yet, at the same time, Myshkin can speak about thinking that R could murder Nastassya. How could he seem shocked that R would beat her black and blue, and yet so calmly state that he believes R could murder her?

Dostoevsky's wife, who was his secretary before and after they married, preserved all eight of the plans he wrote for writing The Idiot, that completely changed during the 3-4 months he wrote them. Originally, his Prince was to be a Rogozhin-like character who by the end of the book was to transform him into a Myshkin-like character. Dostoevsky wrote the first chapters of the first part and eventually threw them out. At that point, he decided to take a different slant, and create a Myshkin who was a "beautiful person" and a Rogozhin who was the opposite.

What I find most intriguing about this is how Dostoevsky expressed his own warring dualities by splitting them into two individuals. One a surface level, it is difficult to understand why Myshkin would be so drawn to Rogozhin and Rogozhin to Myshkin. But on a deeper level, viewing them as two sides of the same person makes this understandable.

Myshkin is a higher self, drawn to virtue, and apparently quite pure and sexless. Rogozhin is motivated by uncontrollable passion - jealous, possessive and destructive. As appealing as Mishkin may be on one level, he is incomplete because he apparently has not come to terms with and integrated his dark and primal self.

Chapters 3-4 are quite enlightening about both of them in relationship. I find their dynamics quite fascinating.

Gosta wrote: "As many other of D's characters Lev is a type of person I don't think I have met very often. Persons around me are more civilized as the characters in AK."

That is probably true for most of us discussing books online, right? Rogozhin, Lebedev and Nastasya are not likely to join us.

But not only are there some people in the most civilized areas who are ruled more by self-interest and lower emotions than morality and sincerity, very primitive forces have seemed to be unleashed again in the world during the past few decades.

Don't you think that occasionally most of us experience some of the "less civilized" emotions and motives that Dostoevsky portrays - that we just learn to manage them, or repress them? And we can also project them onto others if we do experience them but deny them.

Dostoevsky influenced Freud and probably Jung as well. He really does portray selves ruled by the id, our shadow selves.

Gosta, no I don't want to go faster ---I slowed down the "tentative schedule" not only for your sake (and anyone else's) but also my own. I'm teaching several literature courses in-person and it's difficult to be writing and discussing a lot of different novels at one time. And of course, hearing (reading) other opinions is preferable to just monologuing! And in midMarch, I'm running the first of the two in-person discussions of The Idiot at the library here - books 1 and 2. so I intend to finish book two by then.

(How to Manage Fake News sounds like a very worthwhile project --- I'd like to hear more, maybe by email).

You wrote "(Do we have to learn Russian in order to understand Dostoyevsky?)". I doubt that this is a serious question, but you are aware too that different choices of words have different implications. In this case, fraternal means brotherly so there's not much difference. But there is the subtlety of fraternally yours suggesting "like a brother" - not as strong - rather than "your brother."

I paid attention to it because I thought it was important to understand how Myshkin is perceiving his relationship to Aglaya.

About translation - the first female translator of the Odyssey into English (and there are 61 translations into ENGLISH alone!), Emily Wilson, gave a talk last week here in Massachusetts on Homer's Odyssey and the Art of Translation. She showed four different passages from the book, comparing her own translation to about ten other translations from the past 60 years, explaining why she translated words the way she did, in contrast to how some other translators translated them. It was interesting to note the different shades not only of meaning but also VALUE JUDGMENT in the translations (and I will add, the somewhat misogynist choices of words by some of the male translators - e.g. for the maids who slept with the suitors - "filthy sluts", "whores" "dishonored women").

For discussion of Book two, chapters 5-6

Reflections on chapter two -
Myshkin didn't have to return to see Lebedev, who doesn't have many appealing qualities. Leb's wearing old ragged clothes when he has newer clothes suggests that he's trying to give the impression that he's poor and needy - in order to get pity, or money, or both. And a nephew even warns Myshkin about Leb's lies.

Leb's wife has recently died, however, so he is probably not doing well. And maybe he's seeking some companionship - he asks the Prince to stay at his house. It's unclear whether this is as a guest or paid lodger. (Where has the Prince been living anyway?).

Leb suddenly appears religious and is acting odd - praying for the dead mistress of Louis XV who was guillotined, rather than his own wife. Like the Prince, he is preoccupied with another fallen woman, here, and also the guillotine and death.

Some of Dostoevsky's characters are preoccupied with death. And the fact that Myshkin has a headache - a symptom rarely mentioned in novels leads me to believe that he might soon be having an epileptic attack.

Also in chapter one -
Eternal spring must be in the air, because now a lot of our characters are focused on marriage.

Myshkin seems to have made a big impression on the Epanchins - Lizabeta is very fond of Myshkin but very moody in regard to him (Dostoevsky is giving us a number of moody, somewhat unstable females). General Epanchin is so interested in him (why?) that he has him under surveillance. Apparently he has some real concern for the Prince and doesn't believe him competent enough to handle his inheritance well. And indeed he's unbusinesslike, and quick to give what he has away.

These characters act in unexpected ways. I wouldn't have expected greedy, vain Ganya to return the money. And why is he crying bitterly? Because it's so difficult for him to part with it?

It is difficult to tell whether Dostoevsky is consciously creating characters who surprise us and are difficult to grasp, or he is doing a spotty job sometimes of portraying them. We don't get much clarification of the motive or feelings - and the "why" behind some of their actions.