The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Idiot
Fyodor Dostoevsky Collection
>
The Idiot - Part 2
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Silver
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 11, 2014 09:39AM
For discussing Part 2 of The Idiot, please be aware if you have not finished Part 2 spoilers may be posted here.
reply
|
flag
In these first chapters, I see Rogojin as truly dangerous and not just blustering. It makes me realize that several of the other characters are dangerous, as well. It makes me nervous for, well, any other vulnerable character really. Prince Myshkin because of his trusting nature and goodness. All the female characters, especially Nastasia and Aylaya, who are the most sought after.
The exchange of crosses seems such an intimate and symbolic gesture. And the stories that lead up to it had such resonance. Between that and the casual knife, it's no wonder I see danger everywhere!
Chapter Five. Um, yeah, that would be foreshadowing, Renee. X-D
Chapter 9. Lisabetha Prokofievna Fan. She's so mad at everyone! I love her directness and her good intention.
Many things to think about - but one that I would like to discuss is how D handles love. This is unusual in that most, myself included, perhaps don't look to his novels for thoughts relating to this subject. D is known for addressing large questions that revolve around his struggle to understand what it means to be human. Perhaps "love" does have a place in the discussion.D explores several types: love based on passion and flesh (Rogozhin) driven by an ego trying to protect itself and control its environment, love for children (Lebedev or either the Epanchins or Ivolgin families), love mingled with spite (Nastasya for Rogozhin - assuming one argues there is love present) and love based on pity (Myshkin for Nastasya), and love between brothers (Myshkin and Rogozhin) One theme running through these is the disparity or unequalness between the members of the love bond. For Rogozhin, his love is driven by ego and vanity and a desire to control, at all costs, the object of his love. For parents, there is a natural unevenness in the love, parents are dominant and the children, receptive. Nastasya suggests that Rogozhin may be equal to one of her lackeys. The love of botherhood for The Prince and Rogozhin has an aggressor and a potential victim as a nasty surprise in a stairwell. Even for Myshkin, his love for Nastasya is projected from a higher ground, moral, spiritual that implies that Nastasya occupies a lower plane.
Maybe, what D is espousing is a love between equals, based on compassion and empathy, not driven by pride, vanity or a desire to reinforce the ego. This seems to reflect themes discussed at weddings "love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast. It does not dishonor others, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves" Corinthians 13:4-7
I wonder which of the Characters are capable of this sort of love?
As a side note, it has been many years since my last reading of TI, but I find it interesting that D has created such a dialogue-driven novel.
Or perhaps unqualified love. This is the love of Jesus Christ for humanity. He sits not in judgement but has untarnished love for all. He recognizes the sins, but never condemns the sinner.(Of course he violates that when he goes on the rampage against the moneylenders).The Prince is recognized as an idiot, but his idiocy is that his love is not restricted. And essentially this is a story of Christ returned to earth and not recognized as such and initially ridiculed.
To answer the so very easy question of the previous poster, the Prince is not only capable of this sort of love but practices it on a daily basis.
Geoffrey wrote: "Or perhaps unqualified love. This is the love of Jesus Christ for humanity. He sits not in judgement but has untarnished love for all. He recognizes the sins, but never condemns the sinner.(Of cour..."Indeed, The Prince is capable of this sort of love. I did not expect any responses to the question, as the answer is clear. Perhaps framing the thought as a statement would have eliminated confusion
My students sometimes accuse me of stating the obvious, but as there are always some who just don´t know the point....it has to be explicitly stated. I hope our readers knew the answer to your rhetorical question well enough not for me to speak up.
Chad wrote: " and love between brothers (Myshkin and Rogozhin) "An excellent observation, Chad about love and its manifestations.
It is also true that Myshkin and Rogozhin despite being very different gravitate towards each other.
It is not accidental that in this part Myshkin visits Rogozhin. They both see human beings better than anyone else in the novel with the only exception of Natalya Filippovna. She is also very insightful in her feminine way.
Geoffrey wrote: "And essentially this is a story of Christ returned to earth and not recognized as such and initially ridiculed."He is obviously a Christi-like figure in the novel; it is not accidental that when he visits Rogozhin, he notices the painting or the reproduction/the copy by Holbein. It is a epiphanous moment in the novel. It is a point of reference, clearly indicating to readers that Myshkin is the literary embodiment of the same man.
On the other hand, this same painting that should have strengthened one's faith, actually stirs doubt in many people. The portrayed Christ is not divine, but very much human - beaten up, bruised, and scarred, and definitely dead. So is Dostoevsky foreshadowing the grand finale or is he indicating that pain is a part of human experience especially for Myshkin or for all the followers of this faith.
Dying for others' sins did not end well for Jesus, so should our Idiot/ Prince Myshkin redeem the sins of others by his innocence, his love and his immeasurable faith in human decency. Yes, we do know that by the time the novel was written, Dostoevsky had become a Christian, but I am sure his atheistic part was still strong in him when he was writing this novel and this part particularly.
Renee wrote: "In these first chapters, I see Rogojin as truly dangerous and not just blustering. It makes me realize that several of the other characters are dangerous, as well. It makes me nervous for, well, an..."From my reading experience, all Dostoevsky's characters are dangerous, well, maybe with the only exception of Myshkin, but his trust and faith in humanity is so strong that he might harm himself, so he is also dangerous in this sense.
As for Rogozhin, I can see why you are apprehensive about him: he definitely knows the two sides of the coin: the good and the bad, but his stakes are always high and he often plays dangerously. Passion is the word that determines him - either everything or nothing. He is a true maximalist, the black-and-white man, the man who can love and hate the same person with all his might simultaneously. He is possibly one of the most Russian characters in the novel. He does not have European veneer that most of the others have: some of them are rich and often travel abroad (and the French culture was especially popular at that time); others are exposed to this culture through public and private schools, tutors, colleges, and even careers. Rogozhin is totally different, a very enigmatic, paradoxical man, who hates and loves Myshkin. He loves him for his goodness and hates him for the same reason.
Yes, I could see that about him. That passionate, simultaneous love and hate. I think I see him as dangerous because those emotions don't seem completely simultaneous but more like they are living side by side within him. He seems to be driven first by one, then the other. He could do something terrible out of the hatred, even to someone he "loves." And, while I want to say that he would feel terrible remorse afterward, I'm not so sure. Perhaps he would only feel the remorse of what his action might cost him. (The love/trust/etc of the person he has wronged, rather than the remorse of having done them a wrong.
Renee wrote: "Perhaps he would only feel the remorse of what his action might cost him. (The love/trust/etc of the person he has wronged, rather than the remorse of having done them a wrong. ..."I hope eventually the book will give you a definitive answer, but you are right - Rogozhin can be truly dark or truly enlightened, not two things at the same time.
It would be so much easier if in the preface of each Dostoyevski novel there was an extensive list of the characters in the story. Agathie Christie does as much in most of her novels.....why can`t publishers of D.s books do the same?.
I do see how others can struggle with Russian names - there are a lot of characters; Russian names are versatile: pet names, family names, official names, patronymic names, ranks, etc.
Geoffrey wrote: "It would be so much easier if in the preface of each Dostoyevski novel there was an extensive list of the characters in the story. Agathie Christie does as much in most of her novels.....why can`t ..."Something like that would definitely make it much easier for such a complex work. I find it particularly hard since I'm using an old kindle e-reader and I can't really flip through the text easily as a reminder. D:
Well, that was quite a read, wasn’t it? Almost all of it happening in one day.Some thoughts.
The Prince’s description of what he experiences the moment before his seizure is fascinating and something like a religious epiphany.
“The sensation of life and of self-awareness increased almost tenfold at those moments . . . “ “. . . [A]ll his anxieties were as if pacified at once, were resolved into a kind of higher calm, full of a serene, harmonious joy and hope, full of reason and the final cause.”
WOW! The Prince concludes by saying “What does it matter if it is an illness then? Do other people with seizures experience this?
(. . .)
There is a fascinating and foreboding discussion between Rogozhin and the Prince about themselves and their love for Natasha. Rogozhin call’s the Prince’s love “compassion” (pity) and his own “passion.” He says he has no compassion for Natasha, not even a drop, while compassion is all the Prince has for her.
Passion versus compassion.
Those are two opposing types of love, just like Rogozhin and the Prince are polar opposites. For ‘D’ it seems compassion is the supreme kind of love.
Passion versus compassion. Rogozhin versus Myshkin. Bad versus Good.
Aglaya later discusses a poem, “The Poor Knight,” which is about a knight’s pure love. Are the words “pure” and “Poor” a play on one another? During the discussion someone describes the knight’s love as platonic. Does the Prince see in Natasha Plato’s archetype of beauty?
Aglaya recites the poem to the Prince, which contains the following phrase.
Filled with a love for ever pure,
Faithful to his dream’s sweet note,
F.N.B. at last in his own blood
Upon his shield he wrote,
Aglaya replaces the real initials with F.N.B., which I take to be Natasha, although the first two initials are swapped. I do have trouble following all the name variations,so is this Natasha? When I read a Russian novel, it is like I’m keeping track of three times the characters because of all the name variations.
(. . .)
Poor Ippolit. He is dying and believes in nothing. All he has is his hate.
(. . .)
Sometimes I think Lizaveta Prokofyevna is the smartest, strongest person in the room. She gets quite annoyed with her husband for standing around leaving it to her to give the young men the ‘what for.’
And I love the ending. Idiot, come with me. Aglaya wants you to come over. She’s baiting you.
Very nice observations, Xan. I have to wonder if Myshkin would be moved by Nastasia's beauty at all is it weren't for the saddens beneath. Even from the first moment when he saw her portrait, he commented on it. And, shortly afterward, told the story of his relationship with Maria from his time in Switzerland.
Yet, he also seems moved by Agalya. What is it about her that attracts him? Is it her innocence? Her beauty? Is she Mary to Nastasia's Magdalene?
Renee wrote: " I have to wonder if Myshkin would be moved by Nastasia's beauty at all is it weren't for the saddens beneath. Even from the first moment when he saw her portrait, he ..."I think he would not be, or at least the love he felt for her, if he felt any at all, would be different, not the compassionate love he feels here.
We don't know how her sisters feel about the Prince, but Aglaya sees his decency and kindness and is affected by it. But she also sees how vulnerable this makes him and how people use him because his decency knows no bounds. She is difficult with him and angry because he won't fight back when abused.
There is this whole question as to whether someone like the Prince can survive in a world like this. He is already having problems: some are using him, while others are tiring of his child-like innocence, and he has already had one seizure because of the stress.
Can you see Aglaya or almost any woman marrying him? It would soon become a nightmare. The irony here is he is trying to save Natasha, but she may be the only woman strong enough to save him. Can you see anyone taking advantage of the Prince with her standing next to him? I can't. Maybe they need each other.
I don't have much to add to the depth of conversation right now, but I wanted to let you know, Xan, that I enjoyed everything that you wrote in your last comment, especially the last two paragraphs.
I doubt the words "poor" and "pure" are word plays unless there is a similarity in their equivalent in the Russian language.
Geoffrey wrote: "I doubt the words "poor" and "pure" are word plays unless there is a similarity in their equivalent in the Russian language."Good point.
Perhaps, but I think your original surmise speaks to the spirit of the story. It is Myshkin's purity, his naïveté, his faith in humanity that make his a poor idiot in the eyes of the others.
This interpretation definitely holds water, but in fact the words 'poor' and 'pure' are not phonetically similar in Russian.
"The general went on for a long time in this vein, but his words were surprisingly incoherent." I'm afraid this quote sums up my feelings regarding long passages of his novel.
Zulfiya-Thank God you're here! :)
Abby-
I know what you mean. Sometimes it feels like... Blah. Blah. Boring guy talking. I feel like such a philistine! But, yeah, I skim those. :-X
AbbyI think the point being that D.s characters are hardly intellectual superiors. There are long passages that are extremely coherent, usually made by the Prince. D is striving to show the superiority of the "Idiot`s" thinking process.
Re the "blah blah" in the book - Is it just that nineteenth century Russians talked an awful lot? By contrast, in George Eliot (for instance) people's thoughts and what they decide not to say can be as important as what is said. But then they're the reserved English. Dostoevsksy's Russians seem to think aloud, with no holds barred.
Not true. There is a lot of deception and camouflaging going on despite all the chatter. The amount of subterfuge, chicanery, and just plain lying is astronomical. It`s our role as readers to not only figure out the truth but what erroneous thinking is going into the principals`lies. This is a highly complex novel-one of the most sophisticated I have ever read.
Emma wrote: "Re the "blah blah" in the book - Is it just that nineteenth century Russians talked an awful lot? By contrast, in George Eliot (for instance) people's thoughts and what they decide not to say can b..."Hyperbolization and understatement are the two words to describe Russian and British verbal cultures in the 19th century respectively.
In the twentieth century, in literary Russia, the situation changed dramatically because the freedom of expression was under heavy censure and under the pressure of political oppression, so the authors relied on literary doublespeak, the seeming innocence and simplicity, the Aesopian language to convey their ideas. Emotional openness was still present in Soviet-type, propoganda type of literature while literary dissidents had to use their own, reserved code of communication.
