The Idiot
1868, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I’d recommend this book to:
- people already familiar with Dostoyevsky;
- older fellows (perhaps sixteen and up—it’s one of those books that are, unfortunately, better understood by older audiences);
- anyone looking for an original, interesting theme;
- people who like dark stories; and
- people who have at least a little knowledge about Imperial Russia.
Contents
I loved the themes of this book. The main character, Myshkin, wants to love, forgive, and understand everyone endlessly and unconditionally; but in this novel, Dostoyevsky shows this is highly impractical in reality, especially in the modern world. Though some grow to like him, many manipulate him, laugh at him, or call him an idiot for his kindness. Because just outside Myshkin’s pure mind lies a hopeless world. A world where people are preoccupied by greed, pride, social status, and seemingly soulless Enlightenment ideas, where Myshkin’s Christ-like compassion is a forgotten value, something no longer respected and cared for. However, while these people laugh at Myshkin, their own twisted values in life often lead them to become corrupt people or meet ill fates themselves.
Like much of Dostoyevsky, it requires careful reading, annotation, and analysis, as he really takes the phrase “show, don’t tell” to heart. His writing style is complex, but not poetic—it pays little attention to describing beauty or the physical world in general. But his depiction of people’s emotions and psychologies is very detailed; people who read Dostoyevsky often say that they can relate to his characters on a level they’ve never experienced before. For example, Myshkin is rather naive and socially awkward, and is new to life in Russia, having grown up in the Swiss countryside; he feels like he doesn’t completely understand the people surrounding him. This makes him now and then struck by a terrible loneliness, as if he’s from another world, as if he doesn’t belong here and never can. Another example is Aglaya Epanchin, who cycles between pride, intelligence, insecurity, and naivety. I should note, though, that his characters tend to express their emotions and mentalities openly, which leads to them sometimes acting more dramatic or strange than is considered socially appropriate.
In the book, Dostoyevsky personifies the state of the world in Hans Holbein’s painting of dead Christ. This was a painting he saw on his travels which struck him terribly. As we know, Christ rose again, but just seeing this image of him lying in the darkness of the tomb, in such hopelessness and infinite anguish, feeling like God had abandoned him, was something Dostoyevsky felt could be could make someone perhaps lose faith. This parallels how seeing the world today, with its soullessness, scandals, deceit, and hopelessnes, and the way it treats good people like Myshkin, is enough to make a man question his faith. Characters refer to this painting multiple times throughout the book.
The book requires some historical (and religious) knowledge, so I wouldn’t recommend it if you’re new to Russian literature or Dostoyevsky. There are discussions of Russian nihilism, Old Believers, and Slavophiles, and the fate of one character (Aglaya) is sometimes interpreted as an allegory for Dostoyvesky’s view of Catholicism. If you don’t know about these things, I’d recommend reading the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation, which contains footnotes about these topics.
The main downside of the book is how discursive it is. Between the parts of the book delivering its main message are long digressions into family disputes and other problems which contribute little to the main theme. The theme is developed very slowly and sporadically; it can be hard to follow the point of the story instead of getting swept away by characters’ random problems and disputes. Some of the most important characters, Rogozhin and Barashkov, are only seen once every few hundred pages. However, the book’s ending is very intense and well-orchestrated.
Translation advice and other things
As I said, the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation contains helpful footnotes. However, the Carlisle and Avsey translations are more enjoyable. The Garnett translation uses archaic verbiage. Eva Martin’s translation is fine, but somewhat plain.
One funny thing that happens when you read this book in a public area is that people show the title to their friends and say, “Look, it’s you!” or "Look, someone wrote a book about me!"
I have written an analysis about this book.
Page created May 30, 2024. Last updated June 12, 2024