Book Two, Chapters 3-4

[Tracy]

For discussion of book two, chapters 3-4 once you have read these chapters.

[Tracy]

Dostoevsky's wife, who was his secretary before and after they married, preserved all eight of the plans he wrote for writing The Idiot, that completely changed during the 3-4 months he wrote them. Originally, his Prince was to be a Rogozhin-like character who by the end of the book was to transform him into a Myshkin-like character. Dostoevsky wrote the first chapters of the first part and eventually threw them out. At that point, he decided to take a different slant, and create a Myshkin who was a "beautiful person" and a Rogozhin who was the opposite.

What I find most intriguing about this is how Dostoevsky expressed his own warring dualities by splitting them into two individuals. One a surface level, it is difficult to understand why Myshkin would be so drawn to Rogozhin and Rogozhin to Myshkin. But on a deeper level, viewing them as two sides of the same person makes this understandable.

Myshkin is a higher self, drawn to virtue, and apparently quite pure and sexless. Rogozhin is motivated by uncontrollable passion - jealous, possessive and destructive. As appealing as Mishkin may be on one level, he is incomplete because he apparently has not come to terms with and integrated his dark and primal self.

Chapters 3-4 are quite enlightening about both of them in relationship. I find their dynamics quite fascinating.

[Tracy]

Chapter 3 is a very rich chapter - there are so many clues here in regard to the characters of M&R. A lot of things in this chapter stand out for me -

R's "unconcealed enmity, "nasty smirk" and "glaring eyes" all suggest that he's a dangerous personality. A healthy person would avoid him, but Myshkin is not a healthy integrated person. He is clearly drawn to danger, and people who have the potential to hurt him.

I'm not sure that his honesty is so wise either, with a character like R. Why does he tell R that Nastassya begged him to rescue her from R? That isn't likely to soothe R's jealousy, but rather to enflame. M may be honest, but he either doesn't think of the consequences of what he says, or doesn't care.

Myshkin's unconsciously picking up Rogozhin's knife and toying with it seems to me to be an expression of his own unconscious - how he is drawn to Rogozhin's qualities while not approving of them. Some part of him is inclined to "toy" with aggression.

We also see that Myshkin is surprised and disbelieving at first that N would run away to an officer in Moscow, and that R would beat Nastassya. Some part of him want to deny their dark side and think the best of them. And yet, at the same time, Myshkin can speak about thinking that R could murder Nastassya. How could he seem shocked that R would beat her black and blue, and yet so calmly state that he believes R could murder her?

[Tracy]

On the one hand Myshkin is very perceptive about Rogozhin ("your love is indistinguishable from your hatred") yet on the other hand he doesn't understand him - and vice versa. Myshkin feels compassion but doesn't seem to have passion (except for some of his beliefs) and appears to be quite sexless.

Rogozhin has little capability for passion, and related to the world in terms of passion - desire, jealousy, possessiveness. He therefore can't conceive that Myshkin's feelings for Nastassya are much different than his. He has not evolved to a level in which he can grasp Myshkin's feelings.

Myshkin asks R, "Don't you want to earn her respect?" but I doubt that R has any concept of respect either - or self-respect. Neither does Nastassya. Rogozhin and Nastassya both have wild, erratic temperaments.

Gosta, as you read The Idiot, are you relating Wilber's developmental levels to these characters? Rogozhin is clearly in the RED sphere - indeed his dark nearly black apartment is painted red inside. Red according to Wilber is primitive, narcissistic.

At first it may appear that Myshkin is in the blue but I think he's broken green (with maybe some orange?). He hasn't integrated but rather has projected his lower nature.

How do you think the characters of the Idiot reflect Wilber's developmental levels?

[Tracy]

The translation I am reading refers to the Prince's feelings toward Nastassya as compassion. But a brief analysis I read of this chapter refers to his feelings as pity. This brings up an issue I've been aware of for quite a while - the difference between pity, sympathy, compassion and empathy. I type those in that order because in that order they seem to reflect different stages of connection, from looking down at someone in a distantly caring but condescending way to fully joining them in their feeling from more of a position of equality and internal connection.

At some point I read that one or more European languages don't have a word for empathy separate from the word for sympathy. I think German is one, but I'm not sure. I think this is significant because it reflects less entering of another person's experience.
Pity involves distancing and superiority; empathy, closeness and equality. Sympathy I think is somewhere in the middle.

Gosta, what about Swedish? And the other languages you know, since you know several. I think this distinction is important and would really like to know how it is reflected in a number of languages.

In regard to compassion, I would put that on the same level as sympathy, but not quite as deep as empathy. Or maybe between sympathy and empathy. It seems to me that there's still a bit of hierarchy in sympathy - that the sympathetic person feels himself to be in a superior position to the empathic person, but without the judgment of pity.

So what does Myshkin feel toward Nastassya? Not pity, but not empathy either - he's not in touch with her feeling experience. Compassion seems to be the right word here.

[Nancy]

Hi, here I am still reading The Idiot simultaneously with AK. Not posting so much on D since I have had a mad crush on T as you may recall and tend to devote more energy to him.

I too have seen Myshkin and Rogozin as two sides of the same person. I am toying with the notion that Nastassya is the glue, for want of a better term, that connects the two together.

[Tracy]

Glad to hear from you, Nancy!!
That's a nice way to explain - Nastassya as the glue. She is in any case a connecting force and one that increasingly creates tension between the two of them!

You might enjoy this very long article from a recent NY Times magazine
A LITERARY ROADTRIP INTO THE HEART OF RUSSIA, LAND OF TURGENEV AND TOLSTOY
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/ma...

[Nancy]

Test, I just sent a post and was told I need to be a member

[Nancy]

The rest obviously went through. The post that did not go through was to say thanks. I read the link in the NYT' s and learned from it.

[Tracy]

Nancy - I pay for a digital subscription to the NYTimes. It's worth it. Otherwise I think you only get 5 articles a month (I had to choose between the Boston Globe and chose the NYT).
I saved that article in Word so if you want a copy let me know by email.

[Gösta]

Tracy wrote: "You might enjoy this very long article from a recent NY Times magazine
A LITERARY ROADTRIP INTO THE HEART OF RUSSIA, LAND OF TURGENEV AND TOLSTOY..."

Yes, I did enjoy it. There were three different themes at the end I found very worthwhile:

1. The stories about their live people try to convince themselves and their friends about, but it is only something covering what really happened and this lifelong deception creates problem.

2. How important it is for a country to have a narrative about its uniqueness and importance. Here the Russian one is described, we all have heard "Make America Great Again" and in Sweden we are bothered by the worsened "Image of Sweden" (but not so much the real problems behind it).

3. At the end the description of the underground station and its statues. "Few things are more wonderful than vain hope."