The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Idiot
Fyodor Dostoevsky Collection
>
The Idiot - Part 1
Okay, so I am in the group and have finished the first chapter. Do I wait until the 10th to comment? Never been in a discussion group before.
I haven´t read D. since 71. What a pleasure it will be to read him again.
You may start commenting now if you like. You do not have to wait. You can comment on any of the chapters in Part 1 at any time, just nothing that happens after Part 1 should be posted here.
Geoffrey, you can post right now. Officially, it means we discuss it for the next ten days, but unofficially the moderators respond whenever you post, even after these ten days. :-)P.S. Did you post chapter 1 or part 1? You can still post your thoughts about your current progress without reading everything from this week's selection.
What a difficult person is Nastasia... She doesn't have a very nice character. She enjoys the company of men and I think she likes to 'play' with them (promises to marry them and then does not do it and just changes her plans).I like the stories they all tell (of executions and the things they are ashamed of etc.).
Interesting book!
Elsbeth wrote: "What a difficult person is Nastasia... She doesn't have a very nice character. She enjoys the company of men and I think she likes to 'play' with them (promises to marry them and then does not do i…"Yes, Elsbeth, she is deliberately difficult, isn't she? I feel sorry for her though. Trotsky took advantage of her in a despicable way, and her opinion of men is probably largely formed by this treatment. She has little true respect for them and appears to want to exact revenge is any subtle (and not so subtle) form she can. So far, I like her but we'll see as we move along in the story!
I am rather amazed at how adept Dostoyevsky is with crafting the aura around Myshkin. He paints him so wonderfully innocent, sincere, ingenuous, and kind, yet we also see his character through the other characters in the story by the affect he has on them. What an artist!
Cleo wrote: "Elsbeth wrote: "What a difficult person is Nastasia... She doesn't have a very nice character. She enjoys the company of men and I think she likes to 'play' with them (promises to marry them and th..."Yes, Dostoyevsky is a great artist! It is my first book by him, but I think I will read more!
He has a wonderful writing-style!
I love reading Dostoyevsky. The title of the book is interesting. People, especially when they first meet him, think Prince Myshkin an idiot. Yet he has this disarming quality about him that make these same people want to befriend him, to take him into their confidence and their home -- at least as far as I have gotten (Chapter 5). He is also very perceptive and sees the inner person almost immediately. So why the name "The Idiot"? Probably a little early to answer that.
Is it just me that thinks this, or do all Dostoyevsky's characters seem overly animated/excitable when talking? I think they were the same way in Tolstoy's War and Peace too.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I love reading Dostoyevsky. The title of the book is interesting. People, especially when they first meet him, think Prince Myshkin an idiot. Yet he has this disarming quality about him that mak..."It made me think of the Fool characters in a Shakespearean play. The "Fools" are often the clever ones who are laughing at the folly of everyone else around them.
By putting on this act of being fools it allows them to better observe, and tends to cause others to lower their guard around them.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Is it just me that thinks this, or do all Dostoyevsky's characters seem overly animated/excitable when talking? I think they were the same way in Tolstoy's War and Peace too."Yes, often in D's novels his characters have a tendency to be quite excitable.
Silver wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I love reading Dostoyevsky. The title of the book is interesting. People, especially when they first meet him, think Prince Myshkin an idiot. Yet he has this disarming ..."Yes, that seems to be the case here, too.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Is it just me that thinks this, or do all Dostoyevsky's characters seem overly animated/excitable when talking? I think they were the same way in Tolstoy's War and Peace too."I think it's a Russian thing. It's a quirk (for me) that I enjoy about Russian literature. On one hand they are so serious and stoic and then on the other so dramatic. Quite fun!
I`ve read the first part on the train when Myshkin is endeared and the paperpusher is snubbed. What I find so interesting is how adept Dostoyevski was in outlining the social intrigue between the St. Petersburg characters who haven`t even shown up yet, without having to resort to narrative. All the gossip is exactly that-dialogue.We don`t doubt the veracity of their knowledge, despite the difference in social classes. He is able to picture quite reasonably how the state bureaucrat was so privvy to the misdemeanors of the aristocracy.
Elsbeth wrote: "What a difficult person is Nastasia... She doesn't have a very nice character. She enjoys the company of men and I think she likes to 'play' with them (promises to marry them and then does not do it and just changes her plans)."I do not think she is deliberately difficult. She is a typical femme fatale who has to support herself. Humbleness and humility are not the best things to women whose upkeep depends on men around her and who does not have either a family nor friends to take care of her.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "So why the name "The Idiot"? Probably a little early to answer that. "Way too early to answer. So far, you are right, many people think he is simple. Do not forget he spent his many years abroad trying to curb his epilepsy. By the way, Dostoevsky was also an epileptic and a passionate gambler. I think that both Myshkin and Rogozhin are molded after Dostoevsky: his religious and spiritual humility and his passionate gambling side.
Cleo wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Is it just me that thinks this, or do all Dostoyevsky's characters seem overly animated/excitable when talking? I think they were the same way in Tolstoy's War and Peace ..."Absolutely, Cleo! It is a Russian thing! English, as we know, is a language of understatement, especially British English, while Russian is often the language of hyperbolization and affectation. Russians wear their emotions on their sleeve and are very forthright and outspoken.
Geoffrey wrote: "We don`t doubt the veracity of their knowledge, despite the difference in social classes. He is able to picture quite reasonably how the state bureaucrat was so privvy to the misdemeanors of the aristocracy."Rogozhin was traveling in the cheap carriage because he was an outcast for his father, so he simply could not afford any other ticket even if he was coming to inherit a huge sum after the death of his father.
As for gossip, Russians often joke saying that their personal hairdressers and fellow-travellers are their personal psychoanalysts and the seats are the couches. Even if now some can afford private sessions with psychoanalysts and psychologists, the Soviet tradition is strong, and these were the only places where people felt secure to open up and to vent, especially if you had to travel for days.
Zulfiya, if you have time, I'd really love a short lesson on Russian titles to give me more insight into the book. I know the terms "Prince" and "Princess" do not denote royalty, like they do elsewhere, but after that it goes murky for me. Do the titles denote nobility? Yet I know that a Prince or Princess does not have to have money to claim the title, therefore is the title inherited? And can a newly made man (money-wise) take the title if he is rich, yet does not belong to an old noble family? I'm all ears!
These are the tricky words. These words do denote members of the royal family but usually either a son or a daughter of a Tsar/Tsarina or brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles of the true royal family. At the same time, these words also denote anyone belonging to the high-ranking nobility together with 'Duke' and 'Count'. There was also a huge group of impoverished nobility, something like gentry in the UK. They were called 'dvoryane'
The title was inherited, and some of the nobles were very poor. The class of self-made men could not purchase the title; one could still become a noble man if a tsar signed a decree to grant him a noble rank. Some ranks, obtained for the service, could be only life-long, and some could be inheritable.
As for the word 'Prince', it is used to denote a ruler of the country in the medieval sense. For example, Grand Prince Vladimir the Great was the head of the Kievan Rus. As you see, the word has different meanings in a historical sense.
Before the Romanov Dynasty, princes were rulers; with the Romanovs, the term 'tsar' became widespread, and the word 'prince' was used to indicate people of high noble rank, affiliated with the royal family, but not actual rulers.
I hope the explanation holds water.
To confuse you more, there were also ranks, but a rank was used to indicate one's professional advancement. :-)
Prince Myshkin is being portrayed as a Russian 'Holy Fool' and a Christlike figure. There was a tradition of such characters in Russia, Rasputin being the best known and they frequently occur in literature. A number of them were also epileptic and fits were thought to be either a visitation by God or the Devil. (Google Russian Holy Fool, or 'Foolishness for Christ' to find out more about them. ( I am posting on my Tablet and cannot paste links.) The term 'idiot' can therefore denote mental illness and/or holiness.The novel also has an autobiographical element when referring to the soldiers who had the agony of being put before a firing squad and then reprieved as this happened to Dostoevsky and his socialist companions. He compares this experience
to Christ's pain before his crucifixion and the joy of the resurrection. It was an event which caused D. to become extremely religious and to use religious experience as constant a theme in his later books.
The Prince's gentle and innocent character is Christlike and we see him surrounded by worldly, corrupt individuals. Which of the women will be a Virgin Mary or a Mary Magdalen? Who is a Peter or Thomas?
Another recurring theme is the then popular pseudo-science of Psysiognomy. We find a lot of references to the 'character' which can be read in a face, how large the forehead, how big the lips etc. These descriptions would have given D's readers an instant indication of how good or bad the characters were and what to expect of them. People consulted drawings of the skull, often exaggerated by protuberances, which showed the location of certain characteristics. (Google Physiognomy to find some of these.)
Zulfiya wrote: "These are the tricky words. These words do denote members of the royal family but usually either a son or a daughter of a Tsar/Tsarina or brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles of the true royal fami..."Thanks, Zulfiya. I have a much better understanding but a long way to go to becoming an expert. Your explanations were very helpful.
Madge wrote: "Prince Myshkin is being portrayed as a Russian 'Holy Fool' and a Christlike figure. There was a tradition of such characters in Russia, Rasputin being the best known and they frequently occur in li..."This is very helpful information too, Madge, to help pull everything together. I was thinking of Myshkin being similar to a Christ-like figure but my thoughts had gone no further than that. Thanks!
Madge wrote: "Another recurring theme is the then popular pseudo-science of Psysiognomy. We find a lot of references to the 'character' which can be read in a face, how large the forehead, how big the lips etc. ..."If physiognomy was a popular interest during this era, did other writers use it regularly in their novels? I seem to remember reading a classic where there was a heavy emphasis on physiognomy but I can't remember which one it was off the top of my head ……. Zola …… Eliot ……. ????
Zola, especially in his first novel of his cycle 'Les Rougon-Maquarts', The Fortunes of the Rougon.
Zulfiya wrote: "Zola, especially in his first novel of his cycle 'Les Rougon-Maquarts', The Fortunes of the Rougon."That's it! Thanks!
Physiognomy/Phrenology features in most major European novels of the period and yes, Zola and Eliot made use of it. Keep a lookout for its use in descriptions of faces and heads:)It was taken seriously. For instance, the captain of the Beagle almost did not take Darwin as a passenger because his nose was too short, which iindicated a lack of stamina!
Johannes Lavater wrote a book about this in 1701 Physiognomy, Or, the Corresponding Analogy Between the Conformation of the Features and the Ruling Passions of the Mind, which was a bestseller throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. It was lavishly produced with many illustrations and became what we would call a coffee-table book.
Even Professir Moriarity was in on it. When he meets Sherlock for the first time, he says something like, "You have less frontal development that I should have expected." Although, Conan Doyle may have been calling the study bunk by giving his detective a normal-sized head. :)
Well, maybe it was his way of debunking the idea of physiognomy.
Thanks. Not an expression used over here:)
Sorry. Dictionary... Bunk=humbug; nonsense
I just finished Chapter 6 and I'm really enjoying this novel so far. I haven't read much Russian Literature, just Crime and Punishment really, and I struggled with it. But, so far, I find The Idiot to be excellent. I definitely have to google the Holy Fool. (Thanks, Madge.) But even without having done that yet, I can see all these connections. Maria seems like a Mary Magdalene, for example. And, there are definitely Christ-like characteristics in Mishkin, as someone else suggested.
I'm struggling with the fact that Trotsky's behavior to Nastasia is just accepted. He basically took a 12 year old girl and raised her to be his love slave. What was she, about 15, when he started raping her? Now, he gets to marry into a good family, with a wife half his age. So creepy!
We must not read too much into relationships with young girls as it was common practice then, when life expectancy was very low and infant mortality rates high. Taking a young wife ensured that she and several children were likely to survive childbirth. The marriageable age in some US States was 13 until the late 19thC and the Kings of Europe took young wives for centuries to ensure their dynasties. As in parts of Africa and Asia today, the sole role of a girl was to be a wife and mother and to be 'left on the shelf' with no-one to support her would be a far worse fate.
Dosteovsky's opposition to Capital Punishment were very advanced for his time and reflected the views of the European Enlightenment and of he biblical ' thou shalt not kill, as well as his own reprieve from execution .
Dosteovsky's opposition to Capital Punishment was very advanced for his time and reflected the views of the European Enlightenment and of he biblical ' thou shalt not kill, as well as his own reprieve from execution .Another contemporary allusion is to the idea of The Sublime (please Google). References to 'climbing a mountain, the tall pines and the terrible silence' are part of a post-Darwinian way of looking at Nature. It was a constant theme of the Romantic Poets - the grandeur of Nature and its spirituality. Having espoused Evolution and lost the idea of God, they subsituted Nature. Wordworth's poem The World is Too Much with Us encapsulates this very well (Google:)).
Dosteovsky, being religious, became critical of these European ideas and thought that the Orthodox religion of Mother Russia and its uber-spirituality was preferable. Other authors, like Pushkin, thought these old ideas were holding Russia back and saw socialism as a salvation. It was amongst these 19th century intellectuals that the idea of Revolution was engendered. Alas, instead of utopian socialism, they merely exchanged one oppressive unenlightened autocracy for another! The references to Siberia as a place of banishment are interesting, for instance, as the Tsars had their own 'gulags' there.
Thanks Madge, that's useful and interesting to know.
Well, the finale to part 1 was something, wasn't it? Some random thoughts: Natasha is brilliant, caustic, mocking, but also very alone and self-destructive, a soul damaged by the brutal pain of betrayal; while Rogozhin is passionate without the intellectual self-control to curb passion's excess. Meanwhile, standing between the two is the Prince, who is noble yet naive, a child living in an adult world. His great skill is to peel away the layers of deception to reveal the true nature of an individual. We'll see where that goes.
These characters keep reappearing, in one form or another, in Dostoevsky's other novels.
Probably the most powerful passage, for me, was when the prince described the thoughts going through the mind of the condemned murderer as he walked that "last mile." It is the second discussion of execution and death early on in the story.
Of course, Dostoevsky was writing biography at this point. How it must have affected every day of the rest of his life. What was strange was the sisters' reaction to the prince's powerful description of a kind of torture. If they were moved by the prince's passion, they did a good job hiding it. It was like none of them had the experience to feel the pain and torment of the condemned. It went right past them. Anyone else get that feeling?
I wonder if there is such a painting of a face?
Very insightful observations Emma, thanks.The painting the Prince was describing was Hans Holbein the Younger's Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb which D. was so affected by in Basle that his wife had to drag him out of the gallery lest he had a fit. It shows Christ laid out after the Crucifixion, with agony showing on his face and bruises on his flesh and is a work of unusual and shocking realism. (Google.)
This painting of Christ as a cadaver caused D. to question the idea of the Resurrection and whether mutilated bodies could ever rise from the dead and go to heaven? If he had been executed, could he be resurrected? These thoughts tornented him.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Well, the finale to part 1 was something, wasn't it? Some random thoughts: Natasha is brilliant, caustic, mocking, but also very alone and self-destructive, a soul damaged by the brutal pain of …"
It's nice to have someone else in the discussion who has read more of Dostoyevsky's novels. This is my first so I need all the help I can get!
Could you tell me what made you classify Natasha as "soul-damaged"? I wondered about that but right now I just see her as a person attempting to get revenge for the injustice she feels was done to her. Soul-damaged, to me, questions whether she is redeemable, and I'm not sure if I can go as far as saying that.
As for the Prince, I did not see him as a child. Well, of course, the characters in the novel see him as a child, but as the reader, I was immediately struck by the affect his innocence and honestly had over everyone else. He has power, an almost supernatural power ………. he is able to win over the people who initially despise him and people wonder and almost agonize over him, after a very short exposure to him. It's a very effective portrayal by Dostoyevsky.
Hi, Cleo!The Prince is a child in that I don't think he understands the effect he has on others, and this is not always a good thing. Children can get away with things adults can't. Once the novelty wears off, let's see what happens.
Nastasha was Totsky's mistress from a young age. She had no choice, but I think she believed he loved her and would marry her, or at least never abandon her. Then Totsky leaves her to marry another. Nastasha realizes then and there she has been used and discarded. He has ruined her in society. That's a devastating betrayal, the kind that can cause an emotional injury that some never recover from. How angry and hurt she should be that he gets away with this and she pays the price.
It is then when Totsky reports receiving a visit from her and her whole demeanor has changed -- she is angry, caustic, mocking, and vengeful. All she has is her beauty and she uses it like a rapier. But she doesn't just hurt others, she hurts herself. Look at what she does. She leaves with Rogozhin, a man who drools over her but could never understand her -- Totsky all over again without the veneer of the gentleman. Does she leave with him because he is all she thinks she deserves, or does she leave with him to make his life a living hell?
Meanwhile she turns down the Prince, the one person in that room who might ever understand her. That's what I mean by soul-damaged, and, yes, I question whether she is redeemable.
A recurring theme in books of this era is how unforgiving society is to those who violate its social mores. It's zero tolerance. No reason justifies what you did or what happened to you; you are condemned.
Of course, this is my own interpretation and has nothing to do with reading 'D' more than once. Once we get to the end of the book I might regret saying this. I've read the Idiot before but don't remember most of it, and I have a history or remembering wrong, anyway. And I say all this now to make up for all those years I kept my mouth shut in English class.
That recurring theme is a religious one. Society is unforgiving because the church preaches intolerance of sin and the need for redemption. Can people escape their past and be forgiven? What can redeem them? These are questions which haunt D. and his characters.There is a tussle between the Calvinist belief that all is preordained and you cannot escape your fate and the Orthodox belief that you can be saved however great your sin. Can Natasha Mary Magdalen) be saved by the love of the Prince (Christ) or is she condemned to drift from one Devil to another?
Cleo wrote: "Zulfiya, if you have time, I'd really love a short lesson on Russian titles to give me more insight into the book. I know the terms "Prince" and "Princess" do not denote royalty, like they do else..."I am referring to the SIGNET CLASSIC paperback edition and I quote from the notes
Prince: The title knyaz may apply to an independent feudal ruler or to a male member of the Tzars family, however it may also be a lesser hereditary title cnferred by a Tzar for services to the state.
My apologies if someone else should explain the term.
Renee wrote: "Even Professir Moriarity was in on it. When he meets Sherlock for the first time, he says something like, "You have less frontal development that I should have expected." Although, Conan Doyle may ..."And you may also recall that he has a story, THE RED HEADED LEAGUE whose members were antagonists. At the time, those in British society who had red hair were Irish and they were considered inferior, hence the casting of the LEAGUE.
A literary peculiarity partricular to D. that stands out is his lack of exposition of actions in his scenes. Stage directions are embedded often in the dialogue.In the first chapter, there is very little exposition at all and we get a rundown of St. Petersburg society from the 3-way conversation. D. has his characters say what another writer would have written from the author`s exposition.
In reading TI, I am often reminded of other literary works. I could not but help think of the film director Robert Bresson`s film about a lifetime suffering of a donkey and perhaps he was inspired by Prince Myshkin`s own favorite animal.The film, I believe, was La Hasard Balthazar, but I could be mistaken. Doesn`t HASARD mean hunter in French? If so, the title makes no sense to me as the donkey`s name was Hasard and he was a lifelong victim.
P.S. I strongly recommend some of Bresson`s films as he is one of the 20th c. most underrated cinematographers.
Renee wrote: "He basically took a 12 year old girl and raised her to be his love slave. "It is indeed a very disquieting thought, but one should also remember that serfdom was annulled only in 1861. Prior to this date, most gentry and noblemen owned villages and hamlets with the peasants and were allowed to do whatever they wanted to do. Even after the annulment, these peasants became only sharecroppers, below the radar of social recognition.
The gentry could rape young girls and raise them in the manner that is described in this novel. It did not happen very often, but it happened. Even the rich guys did not spend most of the time in Moscow or St. Petersburg. They spent reception seasons there, but still often travelled back to their own estates that were usually two or three or more days away from Moscow or St. Petersburg. And as Madge said, they were blooming girls at the age of twelve, and marriages were common when girls were thirteen or fourteen.
But here is for discussing Part 1 on The Idiot, please be aware if you have not finished this part spoilers may be posted here.