# The Idiot (Dostoevsky)



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2018)

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. _The Idiot_. Signet Classics.

Dostoevsky gives us a warning of Two Russias--one dominated by pride, usury, and “urban values” and the other by the Old Russia. 

The idiot himself is a parable of Russia. How will Russia respond to New Russia? Dostoevsky posits Prince Myshkin for redemption to the Russian soul. We see several responses:


Nihilism and Liberalism (and Dostoevsky implies that the latter must always reduce to the former).


The Bureaucracy. This is manifested by St Petersburg.


Old Russia. Dostoevsky makes clear he is following--at least ideally--the Old Believers prior to the Nikonian schism.

The book offers several internal structures

A Party at Nastasya’s: The Prince deconstructs Ganya’s violence

B. Gen. Ivolgin waxes about money

C. The Prince and Rogozhin meet in the stairwell. 

B’ Gen. Ivolgin has a stroke after waxing about honor

A’ Party at the Yepanchins

1. The Prince offers Holy Russia as the deconstructing solution to the world’s chaos.
2. Dostoevsky exposes the hypocrisy of urban “high life” (p. 558). The Prince gives his eschatology (568ff). References back to an Old Believer (570). Is this a spiritual key to the book? 

Conclusion:

While this might be Dostoevsky’s favorite of his works, it is by no means his best. The plot is episodic. The ending did surprise me, though. I didn’t find all of the character social dynamics believable. Given the meeting between Rogozhin and the Prince at the middle of the book, the dynamic between the two towards the end simply strains all credulity. 

Positives:

*Lebedev might be a scoundrel, but he is funny. I was in tears when Lebedev made up his story on losing his leg.

*The Prince’s narrative on Russian eschatology is simply beautiful.


----------



## ZackF (Dec 12, 2018)

I went through a Russian lit phase about twenty years ago. I couldn’t finish this book. Was totally lost.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2018)

ZackF said:


> I went through a Russian lit phase about twenty years ago. I couldn’t finish this book. Was totally lost.



Yeah, it's more a character study than an actual novel. Open it to any chapter and start reading. You haven't missed anything.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 12, 2018)

I recently tried reading _Crime and Punishment_. Got through the first chapter. I remember I used to enjoy Dostoevsky, but now I can't get into it. It turns out I'm not very interested in reading the rambling and depressing thoughts of a lunatic.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 12, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I recently tried reading _Crime and Punishment_. Got through the first chapter. I remember I used to enjoy Dostoevsky, but now I can't get into it. It turns out I'm not very interested in reading the rambling and depressing thoughts of a lunatic.



I really enjoy Crime and Punishment (as well as other Dostoevsky books, I prefer him to Tolstoy). Obviously Raskolnikov isn't much of a man to be emulated and his world is a dark one, but I still find him very interesting and remarkably well realized for someone who is, to some extent, an embodiment of that which the author loathes and condemns. In detesting him you are sympathizing, I think, with Dostoevksy himself, although he does give Raskolnikov a suppressed streak of pathos and humanity that you can root for and which shows that even the most hardened rationalist can never fully live according to his own dictum.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Dostoevsky, Fyodor. _The Idiot_. Signet Classics.
> 
> Dostoevsky gives us a warning of Two Russias--one dominated by pride, usury, and “urban values” and the other by the Old Russia.
> 
> ...


I'm 300 pages into The Brothers Karamazov. I plan to read the Idiot some time in 2019.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I'm 300 pages into The Brothers Karamazov. I plan to read the Idiot some time in 2019.



Karamazov is great. Pretend Papa Karamazov is Homer Simpson and it falls into place. _Demons _might be my favorite, since it is a philosophical masterpiece on Neo-Liberalism.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I recently tried reading _Crime and Punishment_. Got through the first chapter. I remember I used to enjoy Dostoevsky, but now I can't get into it. It turns out I'm not very interested in reading the rambling and depressing thoughts of a lunatic.



_Crime _isn't my favorite. The underlying premise is brilliant, but it wasnt' Dostovesky's best piece of storytelling.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 12, 2018)

Since I'm of Russian ancestry on my mother's side I got into reading English translations of Russian literature in my 30s. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol, Pushkin. Reading Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, it occurred to me that unless the reader had a knowledge of Biblical precepts they wouldn't understand Dostoevsky. At that time Constance Garnett was considered the most faithful English translator, not sure if that still holds true.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Dec 12, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> Since I'm of Russian ancestry on my mother's side I got into reading English translations of Russian literature in my 30s. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol, Pushkin. Reading Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, it occurred to me that unless the reader had a knowledge of Biblical precepts they wouldn't understand Dostoevsky. At that time Constance Garnett was considered the most faithful English translator, not sure if that still holds true.


I’ve thought of learning to at least read Russian for her literature but I think I’m going to forgo that for other languages. Only so much time....


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> At that time Constance Garnett was considered the most faithful English translator, not sure if that still holds true.



Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky have surpassed Garnett by far.

I knew enough Russian at one time to read News headlines (don't recommend it now, as the FBI would get you in a sting operation). It's hard to speak but the structure of the language is relatively simple.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky have surpassed Garnett by far.
> 
> I knew enough Russian at one time to read News headlines (don't recommend it now, as the FBI would get you in a sting operation). It's hard to speak but the structure of the language is relatively simple.


A friend, and fellow deacon, at our church is from South Africa. A young man in his late 30s. Though he speaks perfect English, he grew up speaking Afrikaans. He has taught his 7 year old American born daughter the language and they converse in Afrikaans. I suppose she is also being taught to read it.
My maternal grandfather and grandmother spoke/read Russian, but regrettably never taught my mother, or me. Nor did either of us learn Yiddish, which he and my grandmother also spoke. It would have really been cool if I had learned one, or both, of those languages when I was a child. 
I could have read Dostoevsky in Russian and Isaac Bashevis Singer in Yiddish. There is always something lost in translation.


----------



## Logan (Dec 13, 2018)

I enjoyed Anna Karenina quite a bit but in general prefer Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy.

I'm personally not convinced the Pevear/Volokhonsky thing is mostly marketing. I had no problem with Garnett and preferred her language in many cases to the more wooden English of Pevear.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

The Idiot was an interesting read for all the philosophy discussed and the way everyone around him treats him when he acts out Christian kindness, but don't expect any plot, per se. Most of the book is dialogues on various topics in drawing rooms or at parties.

By the way, I didn't really find the dynamic between Rogozhin and the Prince at the end to "strain all credulity". That willingness to forgive and re-establish supposedly irrecoverable relationships is one reason he's considered an idiot... seemed to fit the character to me, and Rogozhin on the other hand is just unhinged so it didn't seem unbelievable.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> _Crime _isn't my favorite. The underlying premise is brilliant, but it wasnt' Dostovesky's best piece of storytelling.



True, but it's also not really about the story. The story is mostly just the setting and occasion for Raskolnikov's psychological meanderings. In some ways it's a somewhat more developed _Notes from the Underground_ (which makes sense since it was his next work) _Brothers_ is still my favorite, but _Crime_ is a close second to me. At the same time, I can easily see how a lot of people--even Dostoevsky fans--wouldn't love it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 13, 2018)

I've read Brothers, Crime & Punishment, and Idiot. He liked them all. The first two definitely had better plots and characters. But Idiot was definitely different in that it provoked me to think harder. The plot is weak, but the thought experiment of a guy trying to genuinely love everyone he meets, and everyone he meets happens to be a scoundrel in one form or another is interesting. I think he is suppose to be a kind of rejected Christ figure in the story, and the indictment is on the culture for choosing their empty pride and ploys rather than genuine love. Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover (Dec 13, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> At that time Constance Garnett was considered the most faithful English translator, not sure if that still holds true.



I read an article a while ago saying that Garnett's translations - some of which are more than a century old now - have held up rather well, especially in comparison with some of the newer translations. There's life in the old girl yet!

Constance Garnett (1861-1946) was, as I understand it, the first person to translate much 19th-century Russian literature into English.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 13, 2018)

bookslover said:


> I read an article a while ago saying that Garnett's translations - some of which are more than a century old now - have held up rather well, especially in comparison with some of the newer translations. There's life in the old girl yet!
> 
> Constance Garnett (1861-1946) was, as I understand it, the first person to translate much 19th-century Russian literature into English.


I read that she was the 'best' when I was reading a lot of Russian lit in the 1980s. I also read some of Princeton University's Joseph Frank's biographical work on Fyodor, not all of the volumes, but a couple. By best I don't know if they were referring to accuracy or style, maybe both. BTW, I'm a books lover too.  At 70 years old if I read all the unread volumes I've got I'd have to keep at it and live to be 100 ... yet I keep getting more.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 13, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> BTW, I'm a books lover too.  At 70 years old if I read all the unread volumes I've got I'd have to keep at it and live to be 100 ... yet I keep getting more.



I turned 66 this year, and I know EXACTLY what you mean regarding the number of books to read!


----------



## py3ak (Dec 14, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I remember I used to enjoy Dostoevsky, but now I can't get into it.



Hemingway said it was impossible to reread Dostoyevsky.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2018)

I read the Garnett translation of _Anna Karennninnna_ (or however it is spelled). The English was very good. Too good, actually, and that's often the criticism of Garnett.

The Pevear translation of _War and Peace _is pretty good, except for the annoying habit of putting the French text of the elites into the body, instead of relegating them to a footnote.


----------

