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

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

In chapter 5, we really start to get to know the Epanchin girls, and may be surprised at how forthright and daring they are in their conversation.

I just started reading Dostoevsky's The Idiot: A Critical Companion and was struck in the introductory chapter by Dostoevsky's very enlightened attitude toward women, and his support for their becoming more educated and independent.

When he started The Idiot, he had just married his second wife Anna who was one of the first women stenographers in Russia, and had been earning her living in this new skilled occupation. He was very much in love with Anna, and also very much devoted to his niece Sonya, who was pressured by her parents to enter into a loveless but prestigious marriage.

Dostoevsky was abroad for several years at this time, and in frequent correspondence with Sonya whom he urged NOT to enter into a loveless marriage, but rather to go to school, study, and develop skills in a useful occupation (particularly stenography) so she could be fully independent in a respectable occupation and not compelled to enter into marriage for the wrong reasons.

He wrote her: "You should know that the woman question [the right and legitimacy of women to be independent of men and therefore freer to make fulfilling choices in life], and especially that of the Russian woman, will definitely make several great and wonderful strides even within your lifetime." He let her know that he wanted to "save" her from the "swinishness" of a loveless marriage, as well as from reliance upon a "demeaning" or enslaving occupation.

As Liza Knapp (editor of the commentary book) points out, " The Epanchin daughters have been allowed to eat, paint and read to their heart's content; they have not, at least until the recent plan for Alexandra to marry Totsky, been under pressure to marry. Even Nastasya Filippovna, orphaned and seduced at a young age, appears ready for the first time in her life to take charge of her fate and belong to nobody but herself."

Granted neither Nastasya or the Epanchin girls seem to have developed tact or consideration for others as they've developed assertiveness and outspokenness. But in any case, kudos to Dostoevsky, for embracing the cause of the enlightened, independent woman!

For discussion of chapters 9-11 for anyone who has read them.

For discussion of chapters 7-8

I'm hoping that the lack of conversation here is because you all are just starting to read the book and not ready to post about it yet. Meanwhile, here's my thoughts on chapter 4:

Dostoevsky is presenting characters - especially Nastassia but also Ganya -who suddenly change their minds and attitudes without Dosto or the characters themselves telling us why.

How do we account for Nastassia's change of attitude toward Totsky at age 16, and her vicious determination to sabotage his marriage? Is she in love with him and jealous? Dostoevsky seems to be telling him she is not. Has he already raped her - then turned to another woman? What do you all think?

Dostoevsky tells us that Totsky then decides to set her up in luxury and take her as his mistress (or so it seems) . It's unclear whether he's seduced/raped her at this point in time, when he's seeking to marry someone else. Then about five years later she suddenly changes her attitude toward him again and is eager to talk openly and establish a friendship. So why these about-faces?

And Ganya - he is passionate about her and then suddenly seems to lose interest, and less eager to marry her. Is he then still open to the marriage though entirely because of the money?

Totsky seeks to "buy" him for 75,000 rubles. It's impossible to convert rubles of that time to currency today, but based on what I found about the value of the ruble in 1880 (info before that not available), I suggest a 5-6x exchange rate to U.S. dollars. In other words, Totsky was willing to pay him the equivalent about $400,000 in today's U.S. currency or close to half a million.

To those who joined from LitnLife - I'm organizing several local meetings to discuss The Idiot here in the Arlington/Lexington Massachusetts area and inviting some local people to join us who may or may not participate here but will read some of the posts.

If you are one of those new invitees, please do feel free to participate and also introduce yourself here.

Well, we're having unusual and somewhat scary weather in Boston. A 12-15-inch snowstorm with 35mph winds (happening now) followed by predictions for temperatures down to -15.

I've lived here 39 years and never encountered temperatures that low. The schools are closed for two days and my Internet connection is sporadic - it keeps going out.

What's frightening everyone is the possibility of losing electricity and heat because of the blizzard. Here in the senior housing community where I now live between two hills and on the water, there is no cellular connection. So if we lose our landline which requires electricity we lose both phone and Internet access.

I hope you all are warm and dry and READING. Let's get the dialogue going!

Dostoevsky only tells a little about Mishkin's early years in chapter three. I wish we knew more. We know he was an orphan and originally entrusted to an old lady relative. He had epileptic fits since childhood but I wonder when they started and if Dostoyevsky will tell us that. Undoubtedly, losing both his parents would have had an impact upon his character and maybe his epilepsy.

(I had a friend in high school who developed epilepsy in college. She was a very shelter Cuban refugee with no dating experience, went wild in college, then lost her parents in an accident, developed epilepsy and died of a grand mal seizure a year later).

Epilepsy used to be viewed as a holy madness -when epileptics had a fit, they were believed to be touched by either God or the devil. Having epilepsy himself, my guess is that Dostoevsky wanted to create a sympathetic epileptic character.

Also Mishkin lived in Switzerland early in life and the five years before the novel started, so this would have influenced his outsider status and his lack of conformity to Russian social norms. (I am so reminded of Pierre in War and Peace, entering society at the beginning of the novel, and seeming to be such a misfit).

Having recently watched the mini-series I have many thoughts and questions about Mishkin, but will attempt to keep to the impressions given in each chapter.

Nevertheless, some questions come up for me that are helpful to think about while reading the novel:
In what ways is Mishkin like or not like a Christ figure?
And what is his effect on other people?
How do they project onto him - perceiving him according to their personalities and expectations?
And how his influence beneficial or not beneficial?

He is a fascinating character, and in the Russian language is referred to as a yurodivy -- Russian for "holy fool", well known in Russian eastern Orthodoxy and folklore.

Officially, for posting the week of January 8 but whenever you've read these chapters, you can post here.

MORE CHARACTERS

THE IVOLGINS AND LODGERS
Gavril Ardalyonovich Ivolgin (GANYA) - A thin, fair-haired, good-looking young man of twenty-eight. Ganya is highly vain and ambitious. Although the epitome of mediocrity, he strives for originality. He is in love with Aglaya, but is considering marrying Nastassya Filippovna for her money.

GENERAL Ardalyon IVOLGIN - Ganya's father, an ex-general. General Ivolgin has lost his circle of friends in high society due to constant drinking and lying.

NINA Alexandrovna Ivolgin - General Ivolgin's wife. A dignified woman of about fifty, she is the mother of Varya, Ganya, and Kolya Ivolgin.

Varvara Ardalyonovna Ivolgin (VARYA )- Ganya's dignified twenty-three-year-old sister. She tries to help her brother's chances with Aglaya.

Nikolai Ardalyonovitch Ivolgin (KOLYA) - Ganya's young teenage brother. Kolya is a simple and good-natured boy who becomes friends with Prince Myshkin, whom he respects greatly.

FERDYSCHENKO- An ugly, insolent lodger, as well as a drunkard and thief, in the Ivolgin apartment at the beginning of the novel.

OTHER SUITORS
Yevgeny Pavlovich RADOMSKY- A young and dashing suitor to Aglaya Yepanchin. Radomsky retires from the military just before he takes part in the novel's action. A man of reason, friendly toward Mishkin.

PRINCE S.- The good-looking and intelligent suitor of Adelaida Yepanchin. Prince S. is hardworking, knowledgeable, and very rich.

IVAN Petrovitch PTITSYN- An ordinary man just under thirty who manages to collect a large fortune by being a usurer (lending money for interest). A suitor of Varya Ivolgin.

OTHERS
BURDOVSKY - A young man who fraudulently claims to be the illegitimate son of Pavlishchev,

KELLER – Originally a member of Roghozhin’s gang

HIPPOLITE Terentyev - A seventeen year-old consumptive. Hippolite is well aware of his approaching death and feels like an outcast of nature. He tries to reassert himself by espousing his own views on life and morality in his "Essential Statement". He is the son of Madame Terentyev, the mistress of General Ivolgin.

Reading the end of chapter 3, I am mystified by two things.

ONE: "The prince failed to succeed in broaching the business he which he had on hand though he had endeavored to do so four times." Has Dostoevsky hinted yet what that is?

TWO: The Prince says he can't marry because he's an invalid. Do you think he means here that he actually legally or physiologically (is his sexuality impaired?) can't, or rather that he doesn't consider himself desirable because of his epilepsy?

Dostoyevsky is marvelous in chapter 3 in regard to presenting the interaction and dialogue of the Prince and the Epanchins. In the process, we see the General change his impression of the Prince, and begin to like him and even want to help him. (If you watch the beginning of the Russian film which you can watch online, you'll like him too!)

How intriguing that the Prince reveals his talent for calligraphy. Calligraphy may seem like a hobby to us today but the importance of handwriting has diminished ever since the typewriter, and especially since the computer (And today the fact that children are no longer learning "cursive" and can't even read handwriting is appalling -- the subject of a rant I won't dare to begin....).

I imagine that so many of the early office job in the 19th century involved writing - and clean, clear, legible handwriting would have been as important as typing and computer skills today.

One very serious facet of the early chapters that made an impression on me was how Dostoyevsky seemed to use Myshkin as a mouthpiece for his own views/experiences regarding capital punishment - and what a man goes through when sentenced to death.

I find myself wondering if the character Dostoyevsky is creating here would so fully imagine what a death sentence might be like, or if to some extent Dostoyevsky was more invested in writing indirectly about his own trauma of being sentenced to death and reprieved during his last few minutes than revealing Mishkin's character.

(I do question his belief however that a man undergoing torture experiences only physical pain not emotional pain, whereas a man sentenced to death experiences only emotional pain. I suspect that most people who have undergone torture have experienced emotional pain as well as physical --- and some may have lost their faith in humanity and suffered emotionally agonizing PTSD as a result.)

We are getting glimpses of Mishkin's sensitivity to and perceptiveness about other people. For example, he sees beneath the artificiality of Gania's smile. He's already encountered a number of people who judge others by appearances, but he sees beyond appearances and attempts to understand the underlying reality.

Ah, I did read a review of it that referred to comic scenes, and now that I read the segment about Myshkin and the ass, I can see the humor in it!! But I don't experience Myshkin as a comic character, though some see him that way at least initially.

POSTED AROUND JAN 1
For those of you who haven't been part of a LitnLife subgroup (apart from the regular reading group), what we've usually done that I'd like to do here is have a SUGGESTED reading timeline so that we all can read and post at our own pace (while not referring to later chapters in each chapter-based discussion thread ). But we can aim to keep up with the suggested timeline so that we can dialogue actively with each other.

(Some of us learned in the past NOT TO READ TOO FAR AHEAD because then we lose the motivation to post about what we previously read - it is no longer alive for us.)

SO - I've created a tentative flexible schedule for 4 months. It involves reading approximately 48-62 pages a week (average 53 pages/week, based on a 650 page book with irregular chapter lengths), in 4 months with a brief break near the middle. We'd end around April 25th with time afterwards for reflection. But we would all be free to post ahead of or behind this schedule.

WEEK OF:
JANUARY 2, Book one, chapters 1-4
JANUARY 12, Book one, chapters 5-8
JANUARY 22, Book one, chapters 9-14

FEBRUARY 1, Book one, chapters 15-16
AND Book two, chapters 1-2
FEBRUARY 10 five-day break during Olympics
FEBRUARY 15, Book two, chapters 3-7
FEBRUARY 25, Book two, chapters 8-12

MARCH 7, Book three, chapters 1-4
MARCH 17, Book three, chapters 5-8
MARCH 27, Book three, chapters 9-10
AND Book four, chapters 1-3
APRIL 6, Book four, chapters 4-7
APRIL 16, Book four, chapters 8-11, end of book

I'm so glad you started the "conversation", Nancy, and we can move forward beyond my monologuing!

Dostoyevsky does a good job of making the Prince likeable, doesn't he? Clearly, the Prince lacks social graces (he doesn't seem to care about propriety, is more interested in just hanging out with the servant -- society's conventions here in Russia feel like Victorian England!) , but he seems to be friendly, open and unaffected.

We don't get a very positive opinion of some of the other characters initially. Roghozin squanders his father's money lusting after a woman based on physical attraction, and then deals with the consequences by going on a drunken binge. He has very dark features, Dostoevsky tells us immediately, in contrast to the light-haired prince - clearly there's a polarization here in regard to personality too.

In regard to the girls - I wonder if girls in Russian families were bought up in the 19th century with a bit more freedom than in English families - at least in regard to expressing themselves and speaking openly.

Dostoevsky lets us know that they were quite cultured, and makes the intriguing (and appalling) comment: "Occasionally, people talked with horror about the number of books they read." (Oh my, how they would have judged us females hanging out in online book clubs!).

We are already getting introduced to a number of characters who defy convention, and are outside the norm. That seems to me to be one of the differences between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky -- Dostoyevsky created more characters with intense emotionality who were on the edge of social norms and social propriety (and his characters weren't comical eccentrics like many Dickens' characters).

Literary critics of The Idiot often refer to it as Dostoevsky's most autobiographical book. Although I haven't read a lot about Dostoevsky's life, I know of several facets of his life that had considerable influence upon the novel, even lead on occasion to one of his characters being a very direct and passionate mouthpiece for a particular belief that Dostoevsky developed. Some key experiences influencing the book:

a) He was an epileptic at a time in which medications did not exist which made epilepsy less debilitating, more controllable and more tolerable. Some of his seizures had deleterious effects upon him physically and mentally for weeks afterwards. He also lived on constant fear of episodes, and their effect on his work and personal relationships.

b) He became involved in a socialist literary movement in which members read banned books and were oriented toward socialistic reforms.. As a result, he was arrested and sentenced to death. Only a few minutes before he was to be executed, he was given a reprieve by the Czar - 5 years of hard labor in a prison camp (mostly in Siberia). The hours in which he believed for certain that he was soon going to die had a profound effect upon him.

c) While in a prison camp, he was often tortured and abused as well as placed in solitary confinement for long periods of time. He was also was in the company of many common criminals and surrounded by uneducated Russians of a very different background from him. (Only 1 out of every 500 Russians at the time was literate enough to even be able to read his books). He certainly had a great deal of opportunity to learn about many different kinds of people, especially outsiders and those living on the "edge" of society.

d) During his time in prison, he did a lot of spiritual questioning, which led him to becomes less invested in ideas of socio-political reform, and more convinced of the importance of human love and kindness.

e) Dostoevsky began planning and writing The Idiot within a few years of the deaths of his first wife, his brother and his niece. Although he remarried during this time, he became deeply attached to his first child, a daughter who then died at the age of only 3 1/2 months. His brother had been deeply in debt, and Dostoevsky took on not only his brother's debts, but also the support of his brother's widow and all his children.

As a result, he was in considerable financial difficulty himself, besieged by creditors. He had even signed contracts to write and complete two long books within one year immediately before writing The Idiot. And although newly married, he not only had to sell most of his possessions, but forced his wife to sell cherished possessions to help pay his debts. He also became a compulsive gambler for several years. Completing The Idiot and earning money from it was truly a life and death endeavor for him.

I just got hold of The Notebooks for The Idiot - Dostoevsky's original notes and journals, saved by his secretary/wife, and edited by Edward Wasiolek. It looks absolutely fascinating, as it shows the evolution of Dostoevsky's somewhat tortuous thought process as he developed eight different plans for the book - the final plan in some ways almost the reverse of the first plan.

One review of the book says, "This is an invaluable aid to the understanding not only of the finished work of art, but also of Dostoyevsky's strangely tortured yet confident creative process." (Modern Fiction Studies).

The film made such a deep impression on me, since it raised issues that have been central to my own spiritual conflicts and values - placing so much emphasis upon being in touch with one's heart and expressing empathy and acceptance, and yet discovering that too much love, kindness, empathy and acceptance of another can sometimes be destructive to the other, and sometimes oneself as well. So what truly is goodness?

I am curious about the evolution of Dostoyevsky's thoughts which eventually led him to decide that his main character Mishkin would be - instead of a bad man attempting to be good - as beautiful a person internally as he could possibly create, a kind of Christ on earth.........But then, look what happened to Christ. Can human beings really tolerate saint-like figures?

Anyway, I know I'm doing almost all the posting now because I was so affected by the film, have a 3 week break between school terms right now, and love to do a lot research in preparation for a big read. But I will be posting less as of midJanuary and will look forward to hopefully a stimulating discussion and some diverse points of view.

No, I haven't read the novel yet, Haaze, except for the first four chapters the past few days. I finished watching the mini-series, which has motivated to want to read the novel (which I was planning to read soon anyway, since I'm drawn to "holy fool" characters) right away. I don't mind that I know the plot now.

The mini-series is supposedly quite true to the book (though the subtitles are almost laughable - they remind me of Chinglish, Chinese street signs in English) though I just read that the character Ganya doesn't come across well in the mini-series in relation to the book, and some people think that Nastassia, one of the female leads, is poorly cast.

The actor who played Mishkin was superb. The character reminds me of Pierre in the War and Peace mini-series .........especially Anthony Hopkins' rendition of him.

Here's the superb 9.5 hour Russian mini-series with English subtitles fully available online:

Russian film 9.5 hour miniseries 2003 starring Evgeny Mironov
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Krld...
(turn on subtitles in settings icon - note however that the person who wrote the subtitles did not know English well at all)
You can also by it on Amazon.com but be forewarned - the dvd is entirely in Russian with no directions in regard to how to turn on the subtitles. Fortunately I discovered a subtitles button on my remote.....

(LATER: I just started to view the film online to make sure the subtitles were visible, and discovered that it started with the second episode though it called it episode one. Where is the first episode with Myshkin, Rogozhin and Lebedev on the train? That is the first episode on the dvd. I can't find it on Youtube. Youtube lists the first episode as the one beginning with Mishkin's first visit to the Epanchins)

Here are some clips from the first part of book one, from the above film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbmmj...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32lxi...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upt4p...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2VUe...
------------------------

There's also a 2 hour Russian version of the Idiot which I haven't seen:
Russian 2 hour film 1958 (turn on subtitles)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn8G-...

Here are BBC radio dramatizations (which which don't get great reviews)
BBC radio dramatization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB4sx...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuLMj...