The Idiot
discussion
Is there any point in reading further?
date
newest »
newest »
You're focusing way too much on plot. Dostoevsky's depth comes from the character's thoughts as they roam the streets with no clear goal and in their angry rants and their conversations. It's not about what the characters do, it's about why they do it; their motives, intentions, and desires.
The Idiot is one of my favorite novels. But, as Will suggested, there is much more to the novel than the plot.Prince Myshkin has a history of emotional trauma, which he distances himself from by pretending that everything is fine and he is free of conflict and "bad" motives. He tries to be a Christ figure, but leaves destruction and heartbreak in his wake, all because he cannot face his own inner demons.
For a brilliant psychoanalytic exploration of the novel, read Elizabeth Dalton's "Unconscious Structure in The Idiot."
Unconscious Structure In The Idiot: A Study In Literature And Psychoanalysis
No, Marius, the rest is like that too; and since you didn't fancy C&P or Karamazov, I don't think any D. is going to be for you. -You describe exactly what D. does, as a novelist, and he won't do differently later in the plot. D. is my number one novelist ever ever - but why force yourself? Find another novelist who's for you.
"Notes from the underground" is one of my most favourite..it has lead to many new trends in literature.About The idiot I was at page 367 when I stopped reading it.I have read few other books meanwhile but I intend to comeback and finish it.
Not very accurate, I would say finish the novel, and afterwards think about it, Humans oh Humans!
yes. simply. i finished the novel to get to the conclusion you have predicted at page 200. i can easily compare this novel to THE ALCHEMIST. the words have been beautifully arranged, without a proper plot.
Wills answer was pretty much spot on. Idiot is my favorite of Dostoevsky. I'd recommend finishing idiot and try to focus on what the characters are thinking while they act
I enjoyed Crime and Punishment more so then the Idiot, though I did really like the Idiot a lot! I tried my best to get through the Brothers of Karamzov, but I had to put aside. I believe that Dostoevsky's books are a great deal more different than other novels listed as classical literature. If you haven't been able to find Crime and Punishment and the Brothers entertaining, you are probably wasting your time on the Idiot.
We have to remember, Dostoevsky was paid by the page. Late in life, he apologized to the Russian people for the wordiness of his novels. You can skip paragraphs. Just don't skip the introspection.
If you are looking for action, I think you are reading wrong book. Dostoevsky's novels are more about inner turmoils of the characters. He's one of the best in creating psychological portraits. For me the Idiot is the best book ever written and I haven't enjoyed reading any other book more than this one. If you'd ask me, I'd say try to finish it. But that's me. Doesn't work for everyone.
It's worth continuing although it does not have the narrative fast-train (in comparison, that is) of Crime and Punishment. Selective skimming is also an art, and we readers can become quite good at that.Also, the century he wrote in and the people he wrote for were unlike us, it was probably written for the idle classes to pass their empty days - we tend to read on-the-go, like on the train etc.
But I do admit the long names are often like a roadblock!
idiot，白痴，前1/3需要慢慢忍受，中间1/3就很享受了，后1/3爱不释手
I've got to say, the last part of The Idiot was not as good as the first part - and the ending is far from satisfactory. On the other hand, as a whole the book left quite an impression on me. I'd second what others have said: focus on the thoughts/inner turmoils, because that is what makes it worth reading!
Some people should stick to reading Twilight, Fifty Shades and Dan Brown.
Cody wrote: "Some people should stick to reading Twilight, Fifty Shades and Dan Brown."I laughed, and agree.
Cody wrote: "Some people should stick to reading Twilight, Fifty Shades and Dan Brown."I think that is a bit harsh and uncalled for. If a person doesn't like one classic that doesn't mean he has a bad taste.
I agree with those saying don't expect too much in the way of a thriller-style plot (although the ending is pretty strange and unsettling). It's the journey that counts.Also, though, a lot can depend on which translation and/or edition you're reading. I struggled with The Idiot the first time I read it, and in part that was due to the fact that I was reading an old translation in an edition with very closely-spaced lines. Simply as a text it was physically unpleasant to hack through.
But a couple of years back I got the most recent Penguin version and absolutely raced through the book. I'm sure that in part that was because the prose of the translation was less tortuous and the page layout was much easier on the reader's eye.
It seems like this book is not for you. While I really enjoy Dostoevsky's writing, you clearly do not. The thing I'm wondering is why you would even pick up another Dostoevsky work if Crime & Punishment and Brothers Karamazov didn't appeal to you. For me, if I read two books by an author and enjoy neither, I wouldn't pick up a third one by the same author.
In my opinion, you are missing the point, you are missing the essence of the book by focusing too much on what is going on. If you want to continue the book, you should focus more on it's philosophy, on inner thoughts and feelings, try to empathize with the character, otherwise, there is no point.
Obviously the book is not to your taste or what you are accustomed to reading. The book has its own rhythm, philosophy and related internal sense which lead to a certain outcome. The point is not in what is happening, outcome of the situation, but what the characters themselves are and their life cycles. Character of Prince Miskin is essentially a compromised idea essential as human message. It is also related to the other characters in Dostoevsky's Idiot part, just need to read between the lines. Not purport to monitor the actions already in the perception of this writer's opinion, which stated in his letter, literature.Sorry but you missing the point..
What a waste, to have to read another book to give you greater insight into what D. was trying to get across!!!I didn't like The Idiot at all, but forced myself to slug through it. Never again. We have to enjoy what we're reading or it's a pointless waste of time.
"Crime and Punishment" was at least a little more entertaining and less a drudge than "The Idiot".
Bryn wrote: "No, Marius, the rest is like that too; and since you didn't fancy C&P or Karamazov, I don't think any D. is going to be for you. -You describe exactly what D. does, as a novelist, and he won't do d..."Number one for me as well. He has a few at his knee, ie. Camus, Mann, Faulkner, but yes, he`s the MAN!
Do not read any further. The rest of the book is entirely everything you dislike. I thought it was good, but based on your opinions of other Dostoevsky novels, I can't imagine you liking the rest.
Kiri wrote: "Cody wrote: "Some people should stick to reading Twilight, Fifty Shades and Dan Brown."I laughed, and agree."
Ridiculous! Nabokov strongly dislikes Dostoyevsky and yet I'm sure you wouldn't tell him to "stick to reading Twilight."
to be fair... nabokov seems to like little girls and butterflies so he might really enjoy books like twilight...
dostoevsky is an acquired taste for some, but he has truly amazing and subtle insights into human nature like tolstoy
Daren wrote: "to be fair... nabokov seems to like little girls and butterflies so he might really enjoy books like twilight..."A. That was funny.
B. Nabakov loved butterflies a lot, but only his protagonists (really only Humbert Humbert) were fond of little girls. Also, Nabakov was great at tearing other writers to shreds, so he probably wouldn't have wasted his breath with Twilight.
I've got to express puzzlement like several of the others on this thread.Dostoyevsky busies himself in crafting crucibles of volatile and fringe situations in order to illustrate heights and depths of human experience. His pages are pregnant with this kind of stuff, and his plots are always subservient to some kind of ontological inquiry. Not that his plots are at all dispensable, but Great Neptune's Beard, if you don't enjoy the simple process of reading Dostoyevsky, kick him to the curb.
Dostoyevsky is easily one of my top 5 favorite authors full stop, but I can certainly see that his appeal is far from universal, which kind of makes getting him cooler.
And to flip the tables, I hate Steinbeck. So screw him. These guys are all long dead, anyways. I'll never read East of Eden, and like I said in a review, I will cherish that gap in my knowledge like never having watched a cat being skinned alive.
I have read Idiot, Brothers, and Crime & Punishment and loved the first two and really liked the third. I loved them in spite of not really following the plot and characters very well--I was usually lost. I loved them because I came away with a sense of fear and dread and recklessness. Like the people in the dispute we are kind of stuck there in the middle not knowing exactly why we are there or how to get out or if it will end. He puts you in the mind of someone who doesn't know who they are or why they are doing it but are swayed by powerful passions or ideologies. If you want more coherent plot and structure he's definitely not for you. You might try Bleak House by Dickens for rich characters and plenty of darkness tied together more tightly. Many authors reflect the greater society around them, and Dostoevsky is a product of the raw insanity of Russia, vast unsearchable wild reckless dangerous beautiful jeweled. Sometimes when I read him I think, "ah ha, this is what it is like to be Russian."
If you want a taste of the beauty and humanity of The Idiot, but in a shorter and punchier form, I highly recommend the BBC Radio 4 radio play based on the book.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00srvkn
It's 4 hours long, superbly performed, and really understands the spirit of the novel.
Failing that, if you're determined to try the Russian masters then go for Turgenev, who is fast-paced and quite funny. Gogol's Dead Souls has more plot than the other books, but his prose can be a little tricky to get into.
Honestly, if this was not written by Dostoevsky, it would not be considered in such high esteem. Through the lengthy discussions that take place in the book, Dostoevsky seems to be commenting on Russian society at the time. Therefore unless you have knowledge of the history of Russian society, I can't see why you would be particularly interested in this book. People mention that there is good character development; but for what reason? General Ivolgin doesn't really have a major role in the plot, for example, yet he is involved in several long discussions. I am sure that the analysis of his mindset would be interesting to a scholar of Russian history, but otherwise I'm not sure that there is any relevance to a modern reader. Unless you are familiar with such people in the real world, I don't think that you will be interested in an analysis of their state of mind.
I liked the book overall, as there were some interesting parts; but there were certainly some parts that dragged...
Will wrote: "You're focusing way too much on plot. Dostoevsky's depth comes from the character's thoughts as they roam the streets with no clear goal and in their angry rants and their conversations. It's not a..."
This is the perfect answer. I have nothing to add!
This is the perfect answer. I have nothing to add!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Idiot (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Unconscious Structure in The Idiot: A Study in Literature and Psychoanalysis (other topics)The Idiot (other topics)
To be honest, although I "liked" (3 stars) both books, I am having troubles enjoying them. I am reading "The Idiot" now (I am at about page 200), and I am having the same feelings as when I read the 2 other books: I can not enjoy reading this. 80% of conversations are quarrels, people are roaming through St. Petersburg without clear plans and I feel the novel isn't going anywhere.
"Oh come on, read a bit more, soon it will start to get interesting!", I tell myself, but my experience is that such novels tend to end before they get interesting. In other words, they end in a big disappointment.
I can already guess how the novel will develop from now: the prince will containue to run around meeting Nastassya, then Kolya, then Rogozhin, then he will promise Kolya to meet with Nastassya. But before that he will meet again with Rogozhin, who will tell him to meet with Ganya first, then with Kolya, and only after that with Nastassya. And so on and so on. And, 80% of these meetings will be basically quarrels, as they have been in the 200 pages I have read so far.
To be honest, this was partly the impression I got when reading "Crime and Punishment" (roaming the streets with no clear goal: check; lots of angry quarreling: check), and with "The Brothers Karamazov (roaming the streets with no clear goal: check; lots of angry quarreling: check).
Could someone please tell me if my prediction is accurate? If yes, this will be the first Dostoyevsky that I will not finish.
(No "yes" / "no" answers please. Please give some explanation, comments, advice).