The Idiot - Part 4

[Silver]

For discussing the last part of the book. If you have not completed the book please be aware spoilers may be posted here.

[Renee]

I like the way this opens, with its discussion of ordinary people coming to terms with the fact that they are not extraordinary. This seems such a human observation. And I like the way it starts as a kind of philosophic discussion by the narrator, then works down into the specifics of the characters' lives. (Ganya, his sister, and her husband) I appreciate Gavril more in this light (although I still think he's a weasel).

[Renee]

Just finished and I'm fairly gutted right now. Jeez!

[Zulfiya]

Was it not obvious that the tragedy was brewing?

[Renee]

Yes, I definitely expected something dark. I just didn't expect Hamlet. Or, perhaps, to be so deeply affected. There were so many characters I just wanted to shake until their teeth rattled throughout Part Three, but, maybe, that's what made them realistic. Well, I don't know, overdone and realistic at the same time. Which is probably why the end hit me so hard. That, and the compounded tragedies. (There's not a single character I don't feel sorry for in the end. Except Totski, but he disappeared a long time ago.)

[Geoffrey]

Ganya, at the end of chapter one, goes on a tirade about Hippolyte. He like so many of the others, simply fails to understand what the declaration´s purpose was all about. Few do.
Hippolyteps resolve to commit suicide is reinforced by the ridicule his hearers heap on him,(whew, how´s that for alliteration). Unconsciously he knows his own carácter well enough that he knows he responds to ridicule by his contrary nature, and that reinforces his determination to kill himself. It also serves his purpose that he will be well remembered by all.

[Geoffrey]

Keller understands this and tells the crowd

"Gentlemen, if any of you ever again suggests out loud in my presence, that the cap was forgotten intentionally, and asserts that this unhappy man was only pretending, he will have to deal with me".

Keller is now aware as to the purpose of the public Reading of H.´s last testament and doesn´t want the man´s blood on his conscience.

[Geoffrey]

I have to take exception to D.s long discourse on literary characters and those who lack self doubt. He writes that those who are beset by self-doubt have unhappy lives, whereas their counterparts haven´t. Happiness, however does not solely consist of self doubt or its lack thereof. There are so many other factors. And there are those without self-doubt who have miserable lives becasue they are frustrated they have not achieved in life the material success they feel their due as those with complete self confidence.

"There are a great number of such people in the world....may be divided into two categories:some are mentally limited, others ´much cleverer´. The first are happier. For the ´ordinary´person of limited intelligence nothing is easier tan to imagince himself an exceptional and original person¨

Sorry, D. but more frequently those in the other category think of themselves as exceptional and original.

[Renee]

I disagree. In my experience, people who have true depth of thought, tend to over-analyze and to be filled with doubt. They often do not see their own superiority, but rather do not completely comprehend that others do not have their capacity to see the bigger picture. In fact, most people I've known whose intellect, depth, or sensitivity goes beyond the average, are too busy with their thoughts to spend much time comparing themselves to others, in such a way that tgey actually see themselves as superior. Different, yes. But generally, they can't quite put their finger on the fact that the "difference" is the fact that they are exceptional.

One of the things I loved about this novel is Dostoyevsky's portrayal of what it is to come to terms with one's own ordinariness. The struggle of characters like Ganya and Hippolyte because their ego desires, even demands, that they be more than they are. There's so much poignance in this.

[Geoffrey]

Renee
Do you disagree with what I wrote or with what D. wrote? It´s unclear as to what you mean.
I have no problems with the rest of what you have written in message 9. I endorse them completely. My argument was to the substance as to what makes a happy person, and by your examples, this would refute D.s contention that those limited are happy in their delusion of superiority.

[Zulfiya]

So, has anyone questioned the events of the story? Myshkin is a Christ-like figure and acts like one: he loves everyone, he forgives everyone, he is appalled by corruption, pettiness, lies, etc. The logical question is why is he unable to save the world he is in? Why is this 'Christ' not able to save Nastasia? Why is he not changing people? Are people in Myshkin's world beyond redemption that even he is not able to redeem them?

Some may say there is always the trick of free will as we act they way we want to act, not the way we should act. Somehow the miracles described in the Bible do not fit into this doctrine of Free Will; to be precise, they work only for Jesus when he performs miracles, thus imposing his will on others and depriving the affected people of their free will. Myshkin, who is a Jesus in this novel, can not change the world and all his efforts are in vain. His miracles are not possible; as a result, understanding his impotency and unable to prevent the murder of his only disciple, he ends up in the catatonic state with no return ticket.
Why do all his good intentions bring the worst? Is the road to hell paved with good intentions, even with the intentions of a Christ-like figure?

I still think that even at that point when D. accepted religion, he was still a great doubter, a certain doubting Thomas, a religious skeptic, even if it sounds like an oxymoron ...

[Geoffrey]

I question as to whether he knew his own Christ-like configuration. In his early tale told to the Yepanchin´s his narrative of the children´s affection of him is the passage that cements our impression of him as the Saviour. We recall Christ´s words, "Children, come unto me" and this is exactly what the children in the Swiss village did with the Prince. He even speaks of the incidents in the village in a simple Biblical lexiconagraphy.

[Zulfiya]

But in the end, he (I mean Myshkin) fails to bring peace, serenity, kindness, and love. Murder is what happened in the end, and Myshkin could not prevent it from happening. So the dualism of faith/doubt is still strong in the book, or maybe people do not need God/Gods because they do not see them, or goodness and kindness are not for the people. This is how I would interpret the end.

No wonder the painting by Holbein is so significant. Jesus in the painting is very human, not divine; his body broken by pain, horrendous torture and death. Myshkin is the same helpless being, destroyed by what he witnessed, unable to stop it or change anything in this world. It should not come as a surprise that he is in the state of no return. People do not see prophets all the time, and I am not talking about religious prophets, but we often ignore ideas and words that should be listened to and be forewarned, but alas, we are usually deaf and blind as a society, so why do we need prophets and why do we need salvation?

Usual D. for you. Bleak, bleak perspective for the humanity, and he does not separate himself from the same humanity, riddled with vices and pettiness.

As for your thought about Myshkin and him not being aware of his Christ-like configuration, I would say it is an excellent thought. He is blissfully unaware of his role or as you say configuration while Jesus in the Bible is fully aware of his mission, at least later in his life. So we are dealing with a certain 'defective' model of Christ in this novel, and maybe that is why he 'does not know' he can heal and mend the world he is in.

[Geoffrey]

And yet he does attempt to mediate in every tribulation of all that he associates with. So even had he known his Christlike purpose to life, how would this have enabled him to sabe Natasha. Even Christ could not save Judas from destroying him.

[Zulfiya]

Personally, I always find holes and caveats in the religious doctrine, especially about God's omnipotence and omnipresent and ability to change the world for the best when the world at times is populated by ruthless and indifferent people and/or when innocent people die in vain; but then it will be a theological debate, not a literary one.
I always have had moral qualms about God who sends his son to die the antagonizing death because I think no one deserves this, but these are the thoughts of a humanist who finds religion elusive; that is why I am fascinated with the religion. It has beckoned me not in the meaning of conversion, but the whole idea of its existence and how one and the same religion can make some people better, caring, and loving, and some under its influence become jingoistic, xenophobic, and insular. Religion is a true mystery to me. Maybe this arcane sensation about religion also attracted D and moved him enough to become religious after his atheism.

[Geoffrey]

It is not religión that makes some people better, caring, and loving...etc. but it´s the psychological makeup of its practioners who react to its teachings in either an insular way or otherwise.

[Cleo]

I finished a little late but better late than never. :-) While the Prince's Christ-like love was attractive to everyone, there was certainly the aspect of a corrupt world and human free will that played into the situations. Both Nastashya and Aglaia are attracted to the Prince, yet they both reject him in their separate ways. Although they appear to want what he is offering, they both do their best to keep him at a distance, often it appears against their wills. Others, too, seem to vacillate from embracing the Prince, then distancing themselves from him. Did Dostoyevsky mean to reflect that this is what we do with Christ? Are we internally searching for a goodness that is not found in humanity but when we find it, it is too disturbing/unsettling/big for us to accept?

I was a little confused by this novel but, now that I've finished and have had a little time to muse over it, I think I have a better understanding of it. Dostoyevsky certainly doesn't make it easy for the reader. I'm looking forward to reading more of his works but with a respectful trepidation. :-)

[Geoffrey]

Cleo
Why do you doubt your own insights?

Aglaia refuses him because she is afraid of losing her social standing married to a "fool" who is easily manipulated by con-men. Nastashya is afraid she is not worthy of his love. Two different women, two different responses to his offer. Both suffer their lack of acceptance.

[Geoffrey]

The underlying thread throughout the novel is the issue of death. The Prince discusses this with the family in his philosophical discussion of capital punishment, then further raising the topic later of how to confront one´s immediate death and how to experience those last minutes of life. This is but a prelude to Nastashya´s own death in which the Prince feared to be immenent so he was fearful of her demise.

There is a short story by Leonid Andreyev, a later Russian autor, SEVEN TO BE HANGED, in which seven revolutionaries at the brink of meeting their capital punishment confront their impending death. I suspect that D.s Prince´s discussion of death was the inspiraton of Andreyev´s story. Regardless, I strongly recommend A.´s story to readers.

[Cleo]

Geoffrey wrote: "Cleo
Why do you doubt your own insights?
…"

It's been awhile since I've been confused right to the end of a novel, but it's my first Dostoyevsky, so perhaps it's getting used to an author and the way he presents his ideas, that helps with understanding.

Geoffrey wrote: "Aglaia refuses him because she is afraid of losing her social standing married to a "fool" who is easily manipulated by con-men. Nastashya is afraid she is not worthy of his love. Two different women, two different responses to his offer. Both suffer their lack of acceptance. …."

Yet I was wondering if there was a deeper meaning, especially considering others who seems to be alternately attracted and repelled by or distancing themselves from the Prince, and from that, perhaps a link to Christ and our reaction to him.

[Cleo]

Geoffrey wrote: "This is but a prelude to Nastashya´s own death in which the Prince feared to be immenent so he was fearful of her demise…."

Was his (the Prince's) lack of an intense emotional response to her murder because he had already feared it and was therefore perhaps expecting it? Or was it in line with many of his responses which often seem to be understated given the situations?

[Geoffrey]

Yes, Cleo there was a deeper meaning. This is why D. is such an incredible writer.

yes, he certainly was fearful that Rogozhin would kill her, consciously or not. From the subsequent mental state of catatonia, it would appear that her murder set off that mental state. Remember, he returns to Switzerland and reverts to a state of catatonia, due to the extreme reaction of a hyper-sensitive nature.

[Cleo]

Geoffrey wrote: "yes, he certainly was fearful that Rogozhin would kill her, consciously or not. From the subsequent mental state of catatonia, it would appear that her murder set off that mental state. Remember, he returns to Switzerland and reverts to a state of catatonia, due to the extreme reaction of a hyper-sensitive nature. …"


I probably should have said his initial reaction was understated --- probably from shock. He certainly did have an extreme delayed reaction which culminated in his return to the Swiss sanatorium.

I had expected that it was the Prince who would be killed, so the fact that it was Nastashya gave me a bit of a surprise.

[Geoffrey]

Yes, I expected him to be offed as well. When he was with Rogozhin walking back to Natashaya´s apartment, I was fearful that R. would kill the Prince as soon as they entered her domicile. I could not understand how the Prince believed he could defuse the situation and Ward off the inevitable.

[Cleo]

Geoffrey wrote: " I could not understand how the Prince believed he could defuse the situation and Ward off the inevitable. …"

While I saw Myshkin's Christ-likeness through his compassion and forgiveness and the effect he had on others, it is situations and responses like this one, which is where his Christ-likeness ended for me. While Christ experienced human emotions as a man, because he was also God he pretty much knew what was going to happen and knew other people's hearts/motivations better than they did themselves. Myshkin was such an innocent and so naive much of the time; his unusual child-like character allowed people to open up and accept his quirks and made him an attractive personality, but in the end, it didn't work in his favour or give him a type of power as I had expected it would.

[Geoffrey]

So Christ knew he was going to end up on the cross?

[Cleo]

Geoffrey wrote: "So Christ knew he was going to end up on the cross?"

I was going to look up the actual Biblical passages but didn't have time and I wanted to answer you. Yes, I would say so. He prayed to his father that He would take "this cup" from him and He sweated blood, which I would say indicated that He had a very clear idea that something very terrible was imminent for him.

[Geoffrey]

And when was that? Just days before Judas betrayed him if you insist on making the farfetched point. And again, he knew that Judas was going to betray him long before he did?

[Zulfiya]

Dear friends, calm down. Your discussion of the novel was great and very insightful, but when it comes to religion, it became somewhat heated.

Please try not to project your religious beliefs onto each other. From my personal experience (I have a religious aunt), I know that I can not argue with her about religion. People tend to become defensive and protective of their beliefs however irrational/rational, logical/illogical others find them.

This is the whole idea of religion. It is personal, and it is your choice that others respect even without understanding it, but I do not think it is appropriate to make angry statements about others' views and opinions.

I will encourage everyone to focus on the book, not on the individual religious convictions, and if you allude to any spiritual book, please allude to it as to a book, not as the word of God/gods. I am not going to lecture here about the apocryphal nature of many spiritual books, mistakes when books were translated from one language to another and then to another, and so on and so forth. If you are interested in the linguistic debates of this nature, we can have a special thread about the linguistic nuances of spiritual books in the general discussion section.
Other than that, it is a secular group that believes that personal spiritual convictions should not be brought into the discussion, and if they are, they are just opinions, like the opinions of non-believers. You can only express them without harassing fellow members.

[Geoffrey]

Sorry,Zulfiya, I heartily disagree. This is not a matter of religious belief but a discussion as to what is in the Bible and what is in THE IDIOT.
Cleo made the comment "he pretty much knew what would happen". She was arguing as to the differences between Myshkin and Jesús Christ and I pointed out that there was no such difference in this respect as Christ did not know exactly what was going to happen to him.

This discussion goes to the heart of the matter as to the Christlike attributes of Myshkin and is germane to the discussion of the novel, as its construct centers around the nature of our protagonist. So Zulfiya, please read the postings carefully to get a better understanding as to what is being discussed.

Remember, the Bible also is a work of literatura and as such, merits discussion on that account.

[Zulfiya]

Geoffrey wrote: Just days before Judas betrayed him if you insist on making the farfetched point"

Thank you for discussing the Bible as literature because then we might be dealing with politically incorrect discussions if we are treating it as a word of God/gods. As for me, I view all spiritual books as works of literature only, but some people can use them as guidance books, and if you are, I will encourage you to do so. Love your reading neighbor as yourself :-)

As for me, as a moderator, I can not accept comments like 'Just days before Judas betrayed him if YOU INSIST ON MAKING THE FARFETCHED POINT'. I do find them overemotional and even brusque. No one's opinion is farfetched here, and everyone has a right to express one's literary opinion here.

And yes, verbal communication via letters can be hard to read because it lacks the non-verbal part that constitutes up to 60% of all the information one conveys. It is linguistic reality. We often misunderstand each other, but we also have the rules how to deal with misunderstanding.

I sincerely believe that we are here because we enjoy reading together, and everyone's reading experience enriches others.

[Renee]

Well said, Zulfiya.
Thank you for keeping us on track. <3

[Geoffrey]

Okay, I will back up.
Cleo you say that Christ knew something bad was imminent. You paraphrase some lines in the Bible which I don´t recall but don´t clearly state that he knew he was going to die on the cross.

But he was aware something bad was going down. So did Myshkin. That was my point. There are more similarities.

[Zulfiya]

Thank you for clarifying your point, Geoffrey. Sometimes we all have to remember how hard it is to interpret the communication that is not face-to-face; besides, it might also be charged with additional emotive meaning. So please, dear members, remember that your point can not always be clear to due the reasons we can not control.

[Cleo]

I'm not offended at all by any of the comments on this thread, but others can be more sensitive, therefore I do agree with Zulfiya, that it is best to try to moderate our responses. We're not going to agree on everything and that's okay.

It's unfortunate that the discussion went the way it did. My intention wasn’t to make it a religious discussion. Myshkin has been described as a "Christ-like" figure and naturally from that, it made sense to try to discover the similarities and differences between them. I was a little leery with some of Geoffrey's questions, knowing the way these things can go, but it is very difficult to read classic literature without referencing the Bible. It permeates everything. I did, however, try to back up what I said with text and keep it in a literary context. Even so, the discussion went from comparing Myshkin to Christ, to just Christ so, given the situation, it’s best to just get back to talking about the book.

Thanks so much, Zulfiya, for your excellent moderation and for keeping us in check!

[Cleo]

Geoffrey wrote: "Okay, I will back up.
Cleo you say that Christ knew something bad was imminent. You paraphrase some lines in the Bible which I don´t recall but don´t clearly state that he knew he was going to die …"

Gotcha! :-)

[Geoffrey]

So all in all, I am still not sure why Nastasha made those spurious charges against the man to whom her marriage arrangements were orchestrated. Anyone out there help me?