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

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

I'm going to continue to post occasionally although we're having almost no dialogue, for which I was hoping. But given that I take notes on my reading and plan to teach The Idiot later in the year, it's helpful to clarify my thoughts here. I hope that eventually other will people will participate.

Chapter one is mostly narration. For some reason, Dostoevsky has skipped six months and is catching us up with a summary of events pertaining to our characters. It's not clear why Myshkin goes away and returns six months later (he may have had to return to Switzerland to deal with the inheritance - but maybe he's decided that spending time with such volatile people as Nastassya and Rogozhin isn't good for his soul!) but in any case, he's entering their world again.

Dostoevsky gives us the impression that he was not fully conscious of his own feelings and motives when out of the blue he writes Aglaya - and signed it "fraternally yours" (at least in Avsey - I wonder if he uses a brotherly term in other translations). That does mean he's perceiving a platonic brotherly attitude toward to her.

He also says that he "needs" her, which is quite a strong statement to make given his short acquaintance with her, and without any clarification of this unexpected need.

Aglaya's laughing reaction is hard to fathom too. But her perception that she's not real to him is accurate - he hardly knows her.

For discussion of book two, chapters 3-4 once you have read these chapters.

And about Ganya in this chapter --
I originally interpreted Ganya's failure to reach for the money in the flames as fear of getting burnt - and thought that his fear was greater here than his greed.

But Nastasya interprets his hesitation as his pride - as does the one commentary I'm reading, in Sparknotes (online). She respects him for that, apparently because she judges people (including herself) who are willing to demean themselves for money.

Ganya's fainting seems a bit odd here. Women in 19th century novels tend to faint occasionally - which I thought was mostly because of the tight corsets they wore decreasing their lung capacity and oxygen. But a man fainting? (Maybe in his vanity and desire to look ravishing in his clothes, Ganya wore a corset too! <-: ) .

Do you think that Dostoevsky meant for us to view this fainting as an expression of Ganya incredible emotional turmoil in regard to wanting the money but not wanting to demean himself and burn himself by reaching for it.

Also on chapter 16 --

Sparknotes' analysis of thisdramatic chapter refers to Ptisyn's reference to the Japanese custom of harakari. One expression of harakari can occur when a person is deeply offended by another. Rather than directly express anger toward another, he kills himself in front of the offender. It's a kind of "I'll show you how much misery and shame you caused me by destroying myself so that you know the extent of your cruel action."

So considering this interpretation, Nastasya is running off with Rogozhin in part to show Totsky how he's ruined her.

What do you (if anyone's there) think of this interpretation? What's your opinion of this chapter?

Reflections on chapter 16 -
Nastassya's attitude toward Mishkin - and maybe everyone - seems ambivalent. She calls him an idiot, and an innocent child who needs a nanny.

But then she refers to him as being kind, honest and sensitive and even at the end of the chapter says, "you're the first genuine man I've ever met" (though I'm curious what other translations say about that, since I find the parallel between innocent child, kind, honest, sensitive AND genuine man to be a bit off).

Her decision NOT to marry him because she didn't want to ruin his life - if that's her true motive - sounds like she has a bit of real decency in her. Maybe indeed she has an ideal of purity and goodness, and her own self-destructiveness is not only because of Totsky violating her but because she feels that she betrayed her own standards.

The way she handles the money and everything else in this scene definitely leads me to think that she's on the edge of madness. She disdains money, men and herself.

ALSO in chapter 15 --
Don't you think that the Prince's large inheritance is a bit of a deus ex machina? Sudden windfalls tend to occur frequently and suddenly change people's lives in 19th century novels (Didn't Rogozhin suddenly get a big inheritance too?). Granted, the nobility were wealthy via past investments, and therefore when the old generation died, then the younger generation WOULD receive a lot of money - at least the eldest male in the family would.

Chapter 15 is an interesting chapter. Dostoevsky really excels in revealing character through group dynamics which reveal how each personality related to the others.

Now we see Rogozhin at least as reckless as Natasha - ready to "buy her" with 100,000 rubles. Apparently she's used to being treated as an object - she demeans men for having so little respect that they throw themselves at her and at the same time she demeans herself. When you don't like and respect yourself, how can you care for someone who values you?

It seems like men are projecting all kinds of fantasies onto Natasha. The General is shocked that she speaks in such a demeaning way because he considered her to be refined and sophisticated. Myshkin has already decided that she's blameless, "an honest woman", one who has "suffered in hell and remained unscathed."

So how can he be so sure of this? Is he again relying on intuition, but this time his intuition has gone cockeyed because of his attraction and wishful thinking. I am reminded of Don Quixote. Is he looking at Aldonza and seeing Dulcinea?

Myshkin has known her only a day but chooses to marry her and declares "I love you. I'd die for you." So despite the occasional clarity and perceptiveness he has, he has fallen under Nastasya's spell and is entranced, maybe as possessed as Rogozhin but in an entirely different way - more spiritual, aesthetic. It's as if Dostoevsky presentation of dualities is being portrayed as Myshkin as a higher love (but based on self-deception) and Rogozhin as lower "love", primarily passion.

For general comments on book two that aren't specific to any chapters

For discussion of The Idiot, book 2, chapters 1-2

Like Gosta, I am drawn to both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and appreciate them both for different reasons.

But aware that part of the problem in our contemporary world is that the irrational has surfaced to such an extent that it is destroying the rational, I think that Dostoevsky may speak more to us today. He has many characters who are motivated by primal emotions more than rational thinking and who live on the edge of sanity. And I fear that many cultures today are losing their balance on that very thin edge.

Ah, welcome, Len. I will be glad to have more participants here so our sites is less of my monologues.

"A man endowed with real truthfulness of spirit" sounds to me like a more viable translation than "loyal" since it refers to Myshkin's very obvious honesty and sincerity. (I wish I hadn't left my Pevear translation on the bus - I would like to consult that!)

Also on chapter 14 --

Nastassia also reveals that the Prince is the first person she met whom she recognizes as a "truly loyal" person.

I'm using the Avsey translation now, so am wondering what words other translations might say besides loyal. Loyal doesn't seem like the right word. I would think she would mean honest or sincere. (Anyone else reading this --- are you willing to look up the word here that she uses near the end of the chapter, to describe the Prince?)

The Prince forms opinions of others based on brief impressions. But so does Nastassia. She says she believes in him and he believes in her.

Chapter 14 comments -
So the men tell stories about their shameful behavior, not all which is shameful (how fitting that the General would turn a shameful story into an admirable action, though an action - like many in the novel - based on using money to deal with a situation).

What most struck me in this chapter was how nervous Totsky was when Nastassia said she'd tell her story too (heaven forbid she expose him!) and how disturbed Nastassia - who's already exhibiting unstable behavior - seems to be when Totsky tells of an experience that is less shameful than his seduction and violation of Nastassia.

Dostoevsky is quite skilled here because he doesn't tell us directly what's going on with her and yet we know. And I would think that Dostoevsky meant to portray her volatile, reckless behavior after that as a reaction to angry feelings stirred up by Totsky's avoiding mentioning his violation of her.

Her leaving a very significant decision - marriage - up to the Prince seems very reckless, as if she simply doesn't care what the result might be. Or maybe, do you think, she knows that Prince is attracted to her, and might not want her to marry Ganya - so he can help her get out of that marriage possibility?

Doesn't it also seem odd to you that the Prince seemed to "fall in love" with Nastassia from the time he first looked at her picture? He's only just met here and he already thinks she's total perfection and tells her so.

Given we're discovering how perceptive he is, in contrast to the initial impression he gives, doesn't it seem strange that he - like the other men - would be so overcome by physical attraction? Yet it doesn't seem as if he's having a testosterone reaction like the General or Rogozhin -- his reaction seems to be more aesthetic, related to sheer beauty.

Most of the men here, however, seem to confuse passion and sexual attraction with love. I guess that's a common male syndrome in many cultures, and maybe for adolescence in general, and young women too. From my now senior citizen perspective, I have difficulty understanding it, but maybe that's because my own hormonal level is much lower than it once was. I too was once capable of believing myself in love on the basis of sexual attraction and connection.

On Chapter 13 -
So General Epanchin presents Nastassia with pearls. What are his motives here? We can only guess. Clearly he's attracted to her - might he want to make her his mistress?

I am bothered in this chapter - and others as well - by how the characters taunt each other. There seems to be a lot of cruel mockery, even in the Epanchin family. And we see it in Nastassia, and now with "Ferdy" (the tenant).

Admittedly, I've had some bad experiences with Russian immigrants here in the Boston area - including one instructor - who seem to find making fun of others or humiliating them acceptable behavior. So I'm wondering if this is/was more acceptable in Russia than in some other cultures, as if it's acceptable that only a thin veneer of civilization covers more primitive emotional behavior. (My housecleaner just today told me today that she recently left her Romanian/Russian husband because of his cruel, judgmental, aggressive behavior which he kept defending as normal and acceptable in marriage).

And then Ferdy proposes this so-called game of sharing one's most disgraceful acts. This is no game - confession belongs in Catholic confession and between two people who love and trust each other, and therefore confide sensitive matters.

But to expose one's most shameful act in a group such as this seems perverse, doesn't it? Why do you think people go along with it? It's as if there's some perverse pleasure in exposing one's dark side in a situation in which one cannot count on being heard with compassion.

General Yepanchin isn't too happy about this - he seems to be one of the sanest characters - but apparently he's going to stick around and participate - maybe just because he wants to remain in Nastassia's presence.

On chapter 12:
Kolya seems older than 13, doesn't he? I wonder what the Russian school system was like, given that Dostoevsky has referred to Kolya being in high school. Maybe Russian high school then was equivalent to our secondary school - after primary school.

Kolya likes the Prince, and is definitely in accord with the Prince's values - he also doesn't care for the values and behaviors of high society people.

In this chapter, we become aware of Kolya's friend Ippolit, who has consumption, and Ippolit's mother, Mrs. B.

I had some confusion understanding something here. Dostoevsky seemed to be saying tht Ippolit's mother gets money from the general and then lends it to Ivolgin at high interest. But Ivolgin is a general too, or at least was.

So I assume in just referring to the general (and the Avsey translation just says "general" without a name -- apparently I left my Pevear translation on the bus, and it's gone for good), Dostoevsky was referring to General Evanchin. I'm inclined to call Ivolgin just Ivolgin not only to distinguish the two generals appart but also because he doesn't deserve a respectful title!

Right, I really didn't think anyone here was from Massachusetts. But we have a few members I'm not familiar with, so you never know.

Though I rarely attend webinars, there were two I was very interested in this year, and they both happened to be tonight, one after another (one was the introduction to Jean Bolen's workshop series on Gods and Goddesses in Every Man and Woman). Maybe at some point we can have book discussions via webinars or live chats.

Yes, that "Furste" translation is odd. Maybe Swedish doesn't have a word for Prince that has the same connotations as the Russian word. Or maybe the translator isn't so good <-:

On chapter 11 -
Well, at least Ganya now recognizes that he was wrong about Myshkin and admits it. But it appears that Myshkin is right about Ganya's lack of moral compass and vanity, but telling Ganya his opinion of him is not likely to appeal to Ganya's vanity. Just because Ganya is now aware of Myshkin's perceptiveness doesn't mean he likes it.

And he certainly doesn't like being called ordinary!

Sounds right to me, Nancy - that Myshkin didn't care about social norms (whether he knew them or not) or his self-image. Clearly, he was perceptive about people in part because he cared about getting to know them.

I don't think that Myshkin was speaking the truth knowing that he might hurt others. He may simply not be aware that most other people are busy protecting their self-image whereas the idea of protecting his own self-image didn't occur to him!