Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Unavailable
The Idiot
Unavailable
The Idiot
Unavailable
The Idiot
Audiobook (abridged)1 hour

The Idiot

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

Currently unavailable

Currently unavailable

About this audiobook

Dostoyevsky’s monumental novel The Idiot, adapted into a spellbinding full-cast drama by playwright David Fishelson.

In The Idiot, meet the kindly, childlike Prince Myshkin, as he returns to the decadent social whirl of 1860s St. Petersburg. The two most beautiful, sought-after women in the town compete for his affections, in a duel that grows increasingly dangerous.

An L.A. Theatre Works full-cast performance featuring Edward Asner, Kate Asner, Angela Bettis, Arye Gross, John Kapelos, Robert Machray, Jon Matthews, Johanna McKay, Paul Mercier, Laurel Moglen, Michael Rivkin, Peggy Roeder and Douglas Weston.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateAug 1, 2007
ISBN9781580816090
Author

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) was a Russian short story writer, essayist, journalist, and one of the greatest novelists in all of world literature. His works are broadly thought to have anticipated Russian symbolism, existentialism, expressionism, and psychoanalysis. He also influenced later writers and philosophers including Anton Chekov, Hermann Hesse, Ernest Hemingway, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Related to The Idiot

Related audiobooks

Related articles

Reviews for The Idiot

Rating: 4.118706534469403 out of 5 stars
4/5

2,582 ratings55 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    My first Dostoyevsky novel was “Crime and Punishment,” and I thought it was excellent. “The Idiot” blew it away. The plot and many subplots, and the great characters! The way the intricate storyline spun and swirled was wonderful. I absolutely loved this book!
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I'd like to suggest that reading choice, at all ages, resembles a vortex. One's favourite books and authors swirl round, and are re-read (I've always been a great re-reader). New books are sucked in to join the vortex, and some of the favourites gradually sink down, just occasionally bobbing back up, possibly to be re-read for the sake of nostalgia. The core of the reading remains books I've enjoyed, or authors I've enjoyed, or books recommended as being not dissimilar to those I've enjoyed, but actual content of the core changes over time, as new interests or authors join in the swirl, often inspired by wanting to read more widely on topics raised by the old favourites. For me that would be Shakespeare. I re-read The Idiot for the first time recently and formed a new and rather confused opinion of the book and the Prince. The tremendous passages and themes - mortality, redemption - had a much greater impact on me this time around. At the same time, the more hysterically written sections had a greater impact too. My brain started to develop a tic from all the exclamation marks and superfluous ellipses and melodramatic plot twists. The big surprise came with the dénouement. After having first read it, I'd been catching up on my Shakespeare. When I got to the grand finale of "The Idiot" this time, I realised: 'It's bloody Othello.' The end of Othello is always heart-searing. It makes my eyes fill every time. It is truly dramatic. By comparison, the end of "The Idiot" now seems hysterically melodramatic and has no emotional effect on me at all. Unless wanting to take Prince Myshkin by the shoulders to give him a damned good shaking counts as emotional effect.All to the good, of course. Every time we re-read one book, we're newly informed by the hundreds of other books we've read in the meantime. So I already look forward to re-rereading "The Idiot" to see what I make of it next time.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Nun ja. Ich hatte, ehrlich gesagt, etwas mehr erwartet.Der Stil ist teils etwas umständlich, aber gut lesbar, letztlich leichter als ich dachte. Immer wieder steigert sich die Erzählung zu sehr furiosen, extrem spannenden Szenen, dafür ist dazwischen wieder viel langweiliges Dahingeplätscher angesagt.Umständlicher als der Stil ist die Erzählweise. Die handelnden Personen, zumindest die wichtigsten, werden in großer Ausführlichkeit geschildert, vor allem ihr Verhalten und ihre Gedankenwelt während der vielen Skandalszenen.Die waren es hauptsächlich, die mir das Buch verleideten. Ein Buch wie das „prominent!“-TV-Magazin auf Vox, nur eben in Papierform und aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Sicher, etwas mehr Tiefgang und vor allem der Versuch, die Charaktere zu verstehen, machen durchaus einen Unterschied. Letztlich fühlte sich das Buch für mich aber tatsächlich an wie Klatsch auf hohem Niveau.Dazu noch der unangenehme Charakter fast aller Hauptpersonen, die sich andauernd gegenseitig beleidigen und auslachen, dabei aber immer auf den eigenen Status bedacht sind und dafür über Leichen gehen, sofern das gesellschaftlich akzeptiert ist … Natürlich hält Dostojewskij hier auch der Gesellschaft einen Spiegel vor, aber ich kann mich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, dass er das sehr genüsslich tut.Dabei schafft er er Szenen von ausufernder Peinlichkeit, schlimmer noch als Loriot: Fremdschämen auf allerhöchstem Niveau. Das hat mir persönlich überhaupt keinen Spaß gemacht.Fazit: Stilistisch und erzählerisch hochstehender Boulevard aus dem Russland des 19. Jahrhunderts. Nichts für mich.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Eerste 100 bladzijden zijn zeer boeiend en vlot geschreven. Wat daarna volgt is een bijna onontwarbare opeenvolging van intriges en gesprekken, waarvan de functionaliteit zeer ondoorzichtig is. Gemeenschappelijk element: bijna altijd beweging.Al een eerste keer gelezen op 18jaar; nogal verward geheel
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I'd mentioned earlier I was super loving this book, but in the end it didn't top Demons (it'd seemed to be heading there for the first half or so). But naturally, still a very worthwhile read - it is Dostoevsky after all! I do wish it hadn't gone so gloomy in the later part, I was so enjoying the lightheartedness of the first half or so, constantly smiling and even laughing aloud a bunch. It still had its moments later, of course, but it got much weightier with much less of the lightness as time went on. Every morning the same bright sun rises; every morning there is a rainbow over the waterfall; every evening the snowy peak of the highest mountain there in the distance on heaven's very edge is bathed in purple iridescence; every tiny mosquito, which buzzes around him in the warm ray of the sun, is part of the glorious ensemble, knows its place, is sure of it and is unspeakably happy; every blade of grass grows and is happy. And all things have their appointed path, and all things can find their way along that path, they go with a song and they come with a song; he alone knows nought, understands nought, neither people, nor sounds; a stranger to all, an alien, a reject.The book is really something, though. It kind of defies simple explanation. Dostoevsky said "the main aim of the novel is to depict a wholly virtuous man. There's nothing more difficult in the world," and noted that the only ones who come close are Don Quixote and Mr Pickwick, and that it is the combination of their ridiculousness and goodness that makes them so sympathetic to readers. This is the path he set out to follow, entirely in his own way. Avsey notes in his extra material at the end, "Dostoevsky revels in peopling his novels with every kind of oddball imaginable. He may be accused of having taken the reader into a lunatic asylum, but never into a museum of waxworks. And in the treatment of them he is loving and compassionate throughout, or he would not have devoted so much attention to those that are spiritually and mentally unbalanced." This novel, in particular, really is peopled with every sort of personality, lively and evocative and extreme, and you really can't help but love them, or hate them, or pity them ...or all the above.Definitely worth a gander, especially if you've read & enjoyed Dostoevsky already.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    The introduction said you appreciate this book when you're young. I was outraged (and younger). But maybe it was right. Whatever your age, do yourself a favor and read it.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Eerste 100 bladzijden zijn zeer boeiend en vlot geschreven. Wat daarna volgt is een bijna onontwarbare opeenvolging van intriges en gesprekken, waarvan de functionaliteit zeer ondoorzichtig is. Gemeenschappelijk element: bijna altijd beweging.Al een eerste keer gelezen op 18jaar; nogal verward geheel
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I have never managed to finish this book although I have started it twice and gotten more than half-way through. It's still in my storage books that I own, hopefully one day I'll be able to actually finish this one. I do enjoy it and find the characters compelling, but the style is slow and digresses from the main story many times, which makes this one hard to read.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I really enjoyed this one. The prince was an interesting character that I felt bad for, but at the same time kind of wanted to just strangle. He kept introducing himself by saying, (paraphrased) "So yeah, I was in an asylum for years because I have this disease that makes people think I'm an idiot" and then gets annoyed when people perceive him as being an idiot. He's just naive and sweet.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    One of my favorite books. In mine modest opinion the best Dostoevsky's novel. His descriptions of a perfectly good, pure human are even better then Cervantes' in his Don Quixote. His ideas about religion, meaning of life, love, women's position in the society, the secrets of human soul are refreshing even now-a-days. I am not going to say anything about his amazingly beautiful style of writing... Reading of any of his books definitely contributes to intellectualism, widens perspectives, and brings indefinite joy to all literature lovers.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Here's Dostoyevski's mode of proceeding, and it's maddening. One, here's what I'm about to tell you; two, now here I am actually telling it to you; and three, now let's review what I've just told you. Every point is handled thus. The tedium! Nevertheless, it's D so I forced myself to read most of it. In the end the book fell heavily from my hands and I woke.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    An amazing love quadrilateral, (or really a decagon, if one considers all the suitors). Wonderfully, developed characters, mostly of the unsavory sort, and several of which are intently focused on self destruction. The characters take great pains to develop one another! The narrative is sometimes Seinfeld-esque and often full of wild diversions and the expected but fascinating discourses on religion, life and death. Make sure you have a playbill nesx to you. These Russian names are tough.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Is a sanitarium the only fit place for a saint today? Prince Lev causes turmoil in St. Petersburg society because he is assumed to be an idiot while in reality he is an innocent. An examination of a truly altruistic man in a selfish world. Well worth the read.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    After reading this book, I know that when I am in the mood for a Russian novel to keep me company, I will reach for Dostoyevsky.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    What can you say? An attempt at pushing the limits of individual reflection on how meaning can kill and save (but mostly kill).
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This is not as good a novel as Crime & Punishment. He just doesn't reach the profound here. Still, a large cut above most books and well worth a read. Part 1 is particularly good, bravely written, with a great crescendo and one of the sexiest heroines ever. If the remainder is a little off, don't worry, you're already hooked.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I'm not worthy enough to review Dostoyevsky.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    My first Dostoyevsky novel was “Crime and Punishment,” and I thought it was excellent. “The Idiot” blew it away. The plot and many subplots, and the great characters! The way the intricate storyline spun and swirled was wonderful. I absolutely loved this book!
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    The title character of The Idiot is Prince Myshkin, a poor Russian nobleman who is returning to Russia after spending several years in a Swiss sanatorium to recover from epilepsy. Alone in the world, he is searching for some distant relatives and gets quickly caught up in a complicated love triangle that involves himself, the beautiful fallen woman, Natashya Filipovna, and the wealthy Roghozin. As with many of the Russian classics, there is a HUGE cast of characters, who are well depicted and come from a variety of classes. This book has much of what you come to expect from a Russian classic - tragic heroes, sacrifice and sad, sad endings. But The Idiot is also a wealth of philosophy. Although it departs from the main plot, there is some great philosophy in this book, with reflections on the meaning of life, especially when death is imminent.

    I listened to the audiobook and I LOVED Simon Vance's narration. From rattling off long and beautiful Russian names (my favorite was Lizaveta Prokovyevna) to his wide range of accents for some very eccentric characters, this was an enjoyable book to read and listen to.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I had wanted to read this book for the longest time. I loved the audiobook of “Crime and Punishment” and thought this would be as good. However, “The Idiot” was a bit disappointing. The reader was not as good and the number of Russian names and places were incomprehensible to my ear. In the printed edition, the names would have been more recognizable, so I recommend reading it, not listening to it.The story is intricate and intense. The characters are not very likeable. They are pompous, devious and scheming all the time. They thrive on gossip and rumors. They are judgmental and cruel at times, and tend to angry outbursts and sometimes violence. They seem eccentric, unhappy and unfulfilled, disloyal, often rudely arrogant and completely untrustworthy. The upper class is viewed negatively, as shallow and conniving, rarely loyal and mostly self-serving.The main character, Prince Myshkin is supposedly an Idiot. He calls himself that, however, he seems to have more common sense at times, than all the other characters. He suffers from epilepsy, and as a result, his education was limited, yet he seems to think more logically, in his innocence, than many of those he encounters throughout the book. He is easily admired because of his honesty, even as they laugh at his simplicity or naïveté. Each of the characters is a contrarian, taking the opposite point of view than the one prevailing in their conversations. They seem to enjoy the banter. They constantly contradict each other’s judgment so that what you think is happening is generally not exactly what does occur. The say one thing, mean another. Myshkin’s naive remarks invariably cause havoc and/or inspire respect. Many of the characters accuse each other of being mad. Prince Myshkin, who is supposedly the least sane, is perhaps the sanest of all until the very end when the severe emotional trauma of certain events causes what may be irreversible damage to his psyche. There are some nasty references to Jews which I found disheartening, but I believe it was because of the time in which the book was written. Many books portrayed Jews negatively. (I wonder if Jews, like the blacks and now the American Indians have done, should lobby to alter the wording in these offensive books.) Jews were definitely not thought well of in the few places they are mentioned, and they were presented stereotypically in the view of the prevailing times.Myshkin meets a stranger, Rogozhin, on the train taking him to Russia, and from that moment, his life takes an ultimately tragic turn. Both men become involved with the same woman, Nastasya Filippovna, a beautiful but flighty woman of changeable, perhaps demented, mind. Both men love her, one in a romantic way while the other believes he loves her because he pities her. Myshkin is in and out of another romantic relationship, with Aglaya. He, like Nastasya, has issues with being faithful and true to those to whom they pledge themselves. He is almost the comic foil; he can’t win for losing. He is the most compassionate and trustworthy, but his judgment is faulty and immature. He lacks he reason to truly think through the consequences of his actions; although he analyzes the situations he is in quite logically, he makes illogical conclusions. Myshkin is the subject of what starts out as elaborate deceptions and schemes and then become reality. He is always somewhat of a victim and a hero, at the same time. There are so many ridiculous explanations and assumptions that the truth is elusive; facts are not facts, rumors take on a life of their own, the pomposity of the elite class is irritating. They are all responsible for their own failures and disasters. Their own behavior brings them down and they move each other around like pawns in a game of chess.The book is brilliant but it should be read, not listened to so that the characters are more easily identified by name recognition. Sometimes the reader’s interpretation was frantic with emotion and often the dialogue seemed too long. At times I felt as confused as Myshkin, however, the author examines the minds of his characters in great detail and with enormous depth so that I was able to get to know Myshkin.All for the love of the woman Nastasya Filippovna, Myshkin and Rogozhin ultimately destroy themselves and the woman. There are so many betrayals; brides and grooms are left at the altar, and often mental incompetence is almost presented as the norm. It is as if what we call sanity is unattainable or non existent.It was not until the very last part of the book that it all began to fall into place for me which is probably the mark of the exceptionality of this book. This great author was able to hold my attention, guide me through my confusion and finally allow me to reach the end without having thrown up my hands in despair and frustration!
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    There are many reviews of this book making out that Prince Myshkin was Christ-like, a truly good man who lived for the moment. A holy idiot, or more accurately, wholly idiot indeed is what he really was. Why did they think Dostoyevsky entitled the book, The Idiot if he meant 'The Man who was Innocent and Really Good" or "The Man who was like Jesus"? The title wasn't any kind of irony, it was about an idiot.

    Prince Myshkin had spent years in a sanitarium for his epilepsy and returns to Russia where he trusts untrustworthy people, falls for all their plots where he is the patsy, and falls in love with a rather uppity girl who returns his affections and then when it comes to the moment, chooses another woman for all the wrong reasons and thereby ends up rejected by both.

    He is the very definition of an idiot, he never, ever learns and what intelligence he has he doesn't put to working out the truth of a situation and what he should do to benefit himself. He always falls for the next plot, the next plan, the next person with a glint in their eye for how they can use him to further their own ends. It got so I wanted to shake him and tell him to wake up and smell the kofia.

    Sadly, the debacle, written in a time when not even the word 'neurology' had been invented, let alone the science, is rather idiotic. On getting drawn into a crime committed by a man mad in every sense, crazy and angry, his epilepsy degenerates into a mental illness so deep he crosses over into another land. Bye bye gentle idiot. I was glad to read of you, I'm glad I didn't know you.

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    In short, too much romance and not enough death. Actually, some of the frivolity of the female characters especially sort of reminded me of Jane Austen, who I feel is an earlier/predecessor of wretches like Danielle Steele.

    In any case, if we were to look at the way Dostoevsky writes these women, we would think they were pious, noncommittal, mentally ill, self serving, spoiled, with no sense of grasp on how to conduct themselves properly. The men are more of a varied bunch on the whole, with the intoxicated general to the well meaning prince who is truly no idiot (he's an intelligent epileptic).

    Also, my version of the novel has been translated by Constance Garnett. I know there are fierce debates amongst fans of Dostoevsky about who is the best translator (I seriously think some of them meet in the night over intense chess games to verbally assault eachother over whose translation is superior.) In my opinion, Garnett does well to translate all of the French terms and phrases that are used, the familiarizations in terms of referencing people with different friendly versions of you and their names, and explains what the Russian words that don't translate exactly mean. At the same time, it doesn't seem as poetic as it may have been written in some places and it gets entirely confusing when there are two separate princes and they all have about ten surnames and full names. There are points in the novel when just "the prince" is the reference point but you won't know which prince is being referred to or is speaking for an entire long winded paragraph at least. To me, that just isn't a recommended way of translating and it should be clarified sooner.

    The novel's strengths by and large lie within the philosophical discussions about class and politics as well as capital punishment. In comparison, the love triangle aspect might make the book more accessible to the average reader but greatly lessens the impact of these points. I'd love to read a long essay on these subjects without any female characters involved because, the way Dostoevsky has written these few ladies, I wouldn't care to ever know them.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    My book is a great translation with insight into Russian society.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This book was a lot of fun. I'm sure anyone will enjoy, regardless of the age.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Great novel, and still recognizable. Easy to identify with main character
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I always wanted to read one of "the classics" of Russian literature. I was recuperating from surgery and had a lot of time on my hands to do nothing but read, and this book was perfect. What a sad, beautiful story about a man too kind and good to weather the cynicism of the world around him. The grace of Dostoevsky's prose is simply breathtaking.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I've been hovering around this review, trying to think of the best way into this work. This reflects well on my own experience reading it. I found myself totally immersed in the novel, while at the same time having a difficult time coming to grips with the whole thing. It is a slow burn. Plot elements are put into place, and they develop very slowly as a whole host of characters move in and out of the story. It lacks the driving plot device of the murders at the heart of Karamazov or Crime and Punishment. Nastasya Filippovna and her relationships to Prince Myshkin and Rogozhin is clearly driving the novel, but she is rarely physically present in the middle books of the novel. As a result, it can be easy to lose the forest for the trees here. Yet, it is wholly worth it for two reasons. First, the ending scenes of the novel are riveting. Though the plot develops slowly, it is not developed aimlessly. It is not enough to set the pieces into place, but to slowly develop the mind and character of the Prince. Without this development, the ending might come across as superficial with the Prince's hesitation at a crucial moment seeming like mere indecision. The second reason is that this novel, like much of Dostoevsky's work, is a complete immersion experience. His characters are so memorable, his plots so intricate and his writing so sparkling, that even if you are lost in the forest, you'll be happy to be there. Aglaya's motivations and the nature of the Prince's goodness preyed on my mind even when I wasn't reading. Puzzling through the novel is itself an enjoyable experience. That said, the book is certainly at its strongest in the beginning and end. While the final scenes are intense, engrossing and utterly gripping, my favorite scenes took place early in the novel. When the Prince arrives at the Epanchin's, he discusses his experiences with capital punishment with a few different people. This is the Prince before the complexities of the real world have begun to affect him, and we see his pure compassion in a beautiful way. The passages are wonderfully written, and emotionally affecting. Dostoevsky anticipates Camus' remarks that the great cruelty of binding someone to die often exceeds the cruelty of the crime that is being repaid. It is the certainty of death that makes each individual moment a richer experience, but this richness comes at a price. We appreciate our moments because every moment has been pervaded with a sense of our own death (and perhaps even annihilation). Philosophically rich and intensely moving, these passages are worth reading even if one does not engage with the entire work.Perhaps the central conflict of the novel is one which my own philosophy students are quick to recognize in other areas. While the ideals of goodness (represented here by the Prince) are certainly praiseworthy and worth pursuing, these ideals can not only fail in the complexities of an imperfect world, they can lead to morally bad outcomes. I do not wish to dive too deeply into the ending, but the Prince is conflicted between a love borne out of compassion and one out of romantic feeling. They should not be in conflict, but a conflict is forced upon him nonetheless. Most importantly though, he cannot choose one or the other without causing harm, and the choice he makes certainly makes good on this fear. My students see this same worry when discussing Kant's views on ethics, which require of us compliance with exceptionless moral imperatives. Certainly, they remark, we must not lie. But what if we are in a situation where the world faces us with no choice - lie or permit a terrible fate to come to pass? Dostoevsky is sensitive to this issue, and indeed, one could perhaps read the whole novel as setting up this conflict. To see the conflict arrive on the scene, we need the layers upon layers which could embroil the virtuous Prince in the scenario, with no easy solution out of it. It leaves us with the interesting question one finds between Kant and the utilitarians - is moral goodness a matter of living up to an otherworldly ideal, or of making the best of things given the constraints of this world? Despite all of my praise for the novel, it is difficult to read it without comparing it to The Brothers Karamazov. This is unfortunate. By my (non-expert) reckoning, "Karamazov" is unsurpassed work of literary brilliance, and my favorite novel. There are a number of clear parallels between the work. The Prince's goodness and humility will be seen again in Alyosha, while Ippolit sets us up for the great Ivan Karamazov. The triad of the Prince, Ippolit and Rogozhin shares common ground with Alyosha, Ivan and Dmitri, and similar themes about the relationship between horribly unethical acts, traditional virtue and moral nihilism abound. This comparison is unfortunate, however, because The Idiot is left consistently wanting. I suspect I would have enjoyed the novel even more if I was not (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) recording these comparisons. Though it may not equal "Karamazov," The Idiot is a worthy work in its own right, and one I highly recommend to all readers.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    The more I read and re-read of Dostoevsky, the more I am forced to conclude that he was every bit as medieval philosophically as Tolstoy, at least epistemologically. The most fundamental theme of all of his major works that I've read, including Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and even The Brothers Karamazov (though in a much more subtle and sophisticated form) is that reason and the intellect are corrupting and one should instead be guided by faith and feelings. But Dostoevsky is easier to stomach because his feelings are relatively humanitarian, compared to Tolstoy's obscene misanthropy and misogyny. And for an artistic vision of why Christian morality is utterly impracticable, this is probably the greatest novel ever written...Christlike Prince Myshkin's fate is as inevitable as it is horrifying.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This book is all over the place, but when it is good . . . it is great. The ending has an hallucinatory/dreamlike feel to it that is chilling. I read this long ago, had heard that Myshkin was Christ-like, so of course didn't respond to him at all. The "Christ-like" thing is true, but it's much more interesting than pure perfection. As a person constantly trying to do good, in fact, Myshkin in this messy world actually causes a lot of harm.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    "It's actually rather Austenesque," I told my friend, shortly before reading a bit about eating clerics and completely changing my mind about that statement. Indeed, I was surprised, having only read the author's "Crime and Punishment" and "The Gambler," at how much of a love story this novel initially seemed to be. "The Idiot" filters nineteenth century society, and the unfortunate game, for many women, of trying to make or maintain their station by catching a husband (or, alternatively, to make or maintain their pleasure by being kept as a mistress), through the eyes of Prince Myshkin, a recent returnee to Russia from Switzerland where he was receiving treatment for seizures. It is never clear throughout the novel to what extent Myshkin actually suffers from being an "idiot," and to what extent others' perception of him as one simply makes him so. In him, Dostoevsky portrays love at its purest, most noble, and most confused--for in a world where agape love and friendship can and should exist, but only romantic love is honoured by most, how can one not be confused? The story leads the reader through the agony of trying to understand how these kinds of love can be untangled when Myshkin often seems to love two, but can only marry one."This is a sort of sequel to nihilism, not in a direct line, but obliquely, by hearsay," Lebedyev proclaims, and in a similar fashion, the book picks up in some ways where "Crime and Punishment" left off in terms of its themes, if not in terms of its characters or its overall arc. The religion of Russia's "Old Believers" and Dostoevsky's concern for philosophy and politics figure into the story, moreso in the latter half of the book. The first two parts open in a very narrative style, while the latter two jarringly shift to a style that addresses the reader more openly. Characters in this latter half also go into the question, raised in Dostoevsky's earlier novel, of whether crime is a natural occupation in conditions of poverty. However, the question of human perceptions of others and the constraints society places on interpersonal relationships form the driving thread of the book. Dostoevsky, like Myshkin, suffered from seizures, so it is interesting to investigate the relationship between the author and his character(s). I felt a constant sense of duplicity in the character of Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment" with regards to his rationale for why he committed his crime, and whether he had a solid understanding of that rationale at all points in time or whether he wavered depending on his "madness," his efforts to deceive others, and his changing spiritual understanding. While Myshkin is the complete opposite of Raskolnikov on the criminal scale, the same duality of character can be discerned in his treatment, and understanding of his own feelings towards, the two love interests in the novel. This duality explodes in a shocking twist as the novel concludes. I can not claim to understand Myshkin as well as I feel I understood Raskolnikov (which, perhaps, also speaks volumes about just how far removed Dostoevsky thinks human nature is from the ideal), but the author certainly succeeds in getting me to sympathize with him. This is a complex book that I feel the need to re-read, but do not expect to be burdened by; in its initial portions especially, it is a surprisingly warm and engaging read from an author known for his lengthy philosophical and theological expositions. Dostoevsky also deserves tremendous credit as a male author for delving so accurately into the variations of female psyches in the different relationships in which women find themselves--in this regard, comparing him to Austen or Brontë is not nearly so illogical as it might seem.