The Idiot (Wordsworth Classics)

This was abridged. I couldn't find that information before it was ordered. It's only on the back of the CD in small print. That's bad enough. To abridge it in the first place, however, is stupid. senseless. ignorant and shows that no one involved in the production has any idea of either the worth or the content of what they "repackaged" for profit. It's like releasing a recording of a Beethoven Symphony without 'cellos. It would be a lie to call such a recording the symphony. It's false advertising to call this Dostoevsky's "The Idiot". I hope the lady who claims "it was sooo difficult" to dismember this great work got paid enough to compensate her for selling her integrity.

I decided to read a Dostoyevsky as a break from the light, lazy reading I had been doing recently. I had read "Crime and Punishment" and "The Brothers Karamazov" in school, and thought it time, finally, to read "The Idiot." Oh, Bozhe moi! (Russian for "My God!") - what a silly decision, what a slogging read! It took an act of will to read the entire book without skipping whole pages or even chapters to get through it. Dostoevsky must have been paid by the word, and he must have really needed the kopeks when he wrote this. Had he submitted the manuscript today, I would hope that his editor would have yelled, "Fyodor! What are you doing?! This needs to be shortened by half - at least! And the characters - Oy! Most of them are crazy! What are you trying to say about our Russian nobility? And the ending? Fyodor - it's a big disappointment, ending with a whimper and not a bang! No, no, this won't do if you want to be taken seriously!"

So, my opinion, for what it's worth - read this if you must, but be prepared to be frustrated. If nothing else, it might be a test of your character as a reader...

I love the novel. In fact, it is one of my top five novels of all time, but I do not like the translation of this particular book. I only made it through 10 pages before I scrapped it for another version.

Just a short comment. I read a review posted by someone named Jason and I felt exactly as he did.
He said it was "tangled, hard to follow, and uninteresting"!! I totally agree. I read both Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. I loved them both. This book was very unlike the other two.
He does not describe the environment where the action takes place so it was hard to be transported, and of course each character had at least four names which for a book that I did not find compelling was just a slog. Disappointed!!!

I'm not very far into the book just yet, but I'm enjoying it. I find it enterntaining and the writing to have a nice flow. I bought the book on a whim, and my husband was surprised to see me reading it. I tend to fluctuate between Brett East Ellis, David Sedaris, and chick lit. So far, I'm happy I bought it and look forward to getting a little deeper into the story line.

Interesting, but way too slow. Dostoevsky wrote in the 1800's when people were not is such a hurry as nowdays. For a modern reader it seems he takes too long to get to the point in each chapter and move along in his telling of his story.

If I were only going to read one novel by Dostoevsky this would NOT be the one. It is undeniably great writing and the talent, even genius is obvious, especially when viewed within the context of his other novels. But it is somewhat opaque and not really an enjoyable read for an average reader, such as I. The book is a philosophical treatise and as such has to be "mined" for its true meaning. I am not always good at that. I sometimes do better with a work such as this on a reread, along with a study guide, but I don't anticipate that I will do that in this case.

I may be biased, as I will explain. I am a retired police officer and spent the vast majority of my time as a criminal investigator. With that in mind, "Crime and Punishment" is far and away my favorite work by Dostoevsky. I enjoyed it thoroughly as a reading experience and felt the investigator in that book to be very sophisticated. I also preferred "Notes From The Underground" to this work. I have not as yet read "The Brothers Karamazov" at least within the last few decades, and I can't remember it. Thank You...

I bought this book because I was halfway through the book and I lost it on travel. The book arrived in the time it was promised and the quality was also as described. This is a great classic by Dosteovsky.

I read the Constance Garnett translation of “The Idiot” in a Dover Thrift Edition. The last words of the novel as she translated are:
“We’ve had enough of following our whims; it is time to be reasonable. And all of this, all this life abroad’ and this Europe of yours us all a fantasy, and all of us abroad are only a fantasy … remember my words’ you’ll see it for yourself!” she concluded almost wrathfully as she parted from Yevegny Pavlovitch.
These were Lizveta Prokofyevna’s words to express her longing to get back to Russia from the foreign trip that her family undertook in the aftermath of Myshkin’s breakdown. When I first read these, I was puzzled. Why had Dostoyevsky chosen them and the ideas they expressed to end his novel. I had read that the novel was the story of a Christ-like man whose almost holy innocence affected those he encountered. What had these words that expressed a rejection of Europe for a life in Russia to do with that. It came to me then that Myshkin was a Christ-like figure but as he expressed in his rant at the Epanchin’s party, there was a Christ that was specific to Russia and that Christ was opposed to the false Christ expressed in Europe and particularly the Roman Catholic Christ.
“The Idiot” is a political novel in that it is a novel that is a about the redemptive power of Russian culture. In eh novel, it is a culture based an traditions and religion that are being threatened those who fall way from it into a life of passion and to those who are attracted to modernity in the form of nihilism and European culture. Various characters within the novel personify these. In particular, the two women in Myshkin’s life personify the attraction of passion (Natysha) and European modernity (Aglaia). Both reject and run away from him and in the end, both are destroyed for this rejection.
I don’t know if this interpretation of “The Idiot” as an assertion of the validity and superiority of a Russian culture that is felt to be under threat is one that will be seen as valid by scholars. I’m reading this as a layman to try gain enough knowledge to not feel entirely at sea when hearing discussions of literature on the radio and elsewhere. I saw a similar political aspect in “The Brothers Karamazov” and the question occurs to me if Dostoyevsky is seen as a political novelist. He did ask a rather political question in “Crime and Punishment”. Why is the killer of two people considered to be a vile criminal when while political leaders such as Napoleon who have caused the death of millions are considered to be heroes? I put this view out to see if anyone finds it interesting. Perhaps a scholar glancing at these words will find the idea od a political Dostoyevsky entirely unsupported or maybe so tired and obvious as to be trite. I’m reading in retirement the books that I was supposed to have read as a student but didn’t. Maybe now I’ll be able to learn what I know I should have and have felt missing from my life

By way of clarification, and knowing that this review may get bargled up with other translations or versions in the the store reviewing fold, this is the paperback budget version of Dostoevesky's classic novel THE IDIOT from Wordsworth, a British publisher (cover shows a handsome young man in coat and fur hat). It cost me $3.95 and is fresh and new (this particular edition with its Agnes Cardinal introduction goes back to 1996). Somewhere I read a review that complained that the translator was not listed -- the store may not have listed it, but the translator is Constance Garnett and dates back to 1913.

The fact that the translation is over 100 years old does not necessarily disqualify this book; in fact the 2002 Peavar/Volokhonsky version does not sound THAT much more modern. This is a solid book, cheap, and if you're going to read it in book form and not digitally, you might as well go with this. The novel, as many others have said, is an incomparable classic.

I bought this book because I was halfway through the book and I lost it on travel. The book arrived in the time it was promised and the quality was also as described. This is a great classic by Dosteovsky.

I read the Constance Garnett translation of “The Idiot” in a Dover Thrift Edition. The last words of the novel as she translated are:
“We’ve had enough of following our whims; it is time to be reasonable. And all of this, all this life abroad’ and this Europe of yours us all a fantasy, and all of us abroad are only a fantasy … remember my words’ you’ll see it for yourself!” she concluded almost wrathfully as she parted from Yevegny Pavlovitch.
These were Lizveta Prokofyevna’s words to express her longing to get back to Russia from the foreign trip that her family undertook in the aftermath of Myshkin’s breakdown. When I first read these, I was puzzled. Why had Dostoyevsky chosen them and the ideas they expressed to end his novel. I had read that the novel was the story of a Christ-like man whose almost holy innocence affected those he encountered. What had these words that expressed a rejection of Europe for a life in Russia to do with that. It came to me then that Myshkin was a Christ-like figure but as he expressed in his rant at the Epanchin’s party, there was a Christ that was specific to Russia and that Christ was opposed to the false Christ expressed in Europe and particularly the Roman Catholic Christ.
“The Idiot” is a political novel in that it is a novel that is a about the redemptive power of Russian culture. In eh novel, it is a culture based an traditions and religion that are being threatened those who fall way from it into a life of passion and to those who are attracted to modernity in the form of nihilism and European culture. Various characters within the novel personify these. In particular, the two women in Myshkin’s life personify the attraction of passion (Natysha) and European modernity (Aglaia). Both reject and run away from him and in the end, both are destroyed for this rejection.
I don’t know if this interpretation of “The Idiot” as an assertion of the validity and superiority of a Russian culture that is felt to be under threat is one that will be seen as valid by scholars. I’m reading this as a layman to try gain enough knowledge to not feel entirely at sea when hearing discussions of literature on the radio and elsewhere. I saw a similar political aspect in “The Brothers Karamazov” and the question occurs to me if Dostoyevsky is seen as a political novelist. He did ask a rather political question in “Crime and Punishment”. Why is the killer of two people considered to be a vile criminal when while political leaders such as Napoleon who have caused the death of millions are considered to be heroes? I put this view out to see if anyone finds it interesting. Perhaps a scholar glancing at these words will find the idea od a political Dostoyevsky entirely unsupported or maybe so tired and obvious as to be trite. I’m reading in retirement the books that I was supposed to have read as a student but didn’t. Maybe now I’ll be able to learn what I know I should have and have felt missing from my life

By way of clarification, and knowing that this review may get bargled up with other translations or versions in the the store reviewing fold, this is the paperback budget version of Dostoevesky's classic novel THE IDIOT from Wordsworth, a British publisher (cover shows a handsome young man in coat and fur hat). It cost me $3.95 and is fresh and new (this particular edition with its Agnes Cardinal introduction goes back to 1996). Somewhere I read a review that complained that the translator was not listed -- the store may not have listed it, but the translator is Constance Garnett and dates back to 1913.

The fact that the translation is over 100 years old does not necessarily disqualify this book; in fact the 2002 Peavar/Volokhonsky version does not sound THAT much more modern. This is a solid book, cheap, and if you're going to read it in book form and not digitally, you might as well go with this. The novel, as many others have said, is an incomparable classic.

The size of type is too small for the small line spacing used. Plus, the print goes so far into the binding that it makes the book unreadable. It's a useless book...can't be easily read. I suppose the publisher wanted to keep the number of pages to a minimum and so he cramped everything (small line spacing with small type and the print goes all the way into the binding) in to do it. Very sorry I got it. I guess I shall have to look for another version.

This is a long, slow read. The ending makes me want to track the author down (if he were living) and punch him repeatedly in the face for wasting my time. The Russians in this idiot story are all completely insane - anyone who reads this book to the end is.... an idiot.

I wonder why F.D bothered to scribble this overlong, boring novel. After Crime and Punishment and the Brothers K, this is a serious let down. The style is all wrong; the plot is extremely numbing; very little to enjoy here. Had to slog and slog and slog my way through. Far too many characters floating in and out; too many subplots of subplots; too much overall. By far his worse writing. Should have been edited down by at least 100 pages. I read that he changed his mind about the plot several times and it shows. Badly. I know he was trying a new form of writing, but this is a failure all round. IF you have the patience of a saint and have a LONG attention span, this book might be for you.

Terribly written, hard to follow and certainly not worth the hype it received. Dostoevsky was correct in the prologue where he said himself it was an awful book. Some authors are like brand names; they receive credit based on name alone rather than content.

This book is too long. The story could have been told in 25 pages. It seemed to keep repeating the same old social interactions over and over again. It may be because of the translation but it seemed the same could be said about certain words and phrases which were used repetitively. It was hard to follow the characters as the formal and shortened names were used interchangeably.

NOTE: This is a review of the Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky translation.

Dostoevsky's primary intention with 'The Idiot' was to portray a 'positively good man'. A positively good man in the Dostoevskian universe, however, is an epileptic prone to excitability triggering fits that render him unintelligible, with a clouded mind and coming across to others as idiotic. The idiot in question is Prince Lev Myshkin, a ward of a deceased aristocrat who has received a sizable inheritance. Despite this apparent wealth, he travels in worn, threadbare clothes with very few possessions.

At the opening of the novel, Myshkin is returning to Russia after spending time recovering in a Swiss sanitarium, to contact a distant relative in St. Petersburg, Lizavetta Prokofyevna Epanchin, whose husband, Ivan Fyodorovich, is a prosperous former general. The couple has three daughters, all eligible for profitable marital unions. On the rail journey heading toward St. Petersburg, Myshkin meets a dark, brooding man named Rogozhin who is obsessed with a beautiful young woman named Nastasya Filippovna. After one glance at her portrait Myshkin is immediately smitten with her. What he doesn't realize until he has already uttered her name in the presence of the Epanchins is that Nastasya is a 'fallen woman', orphaned and taken under the wing of a man named Totsky, who coerced her into being his mistress. With this damaged reputation, Nastasya is not considered a desirable match unless there is a hefty price tag attached. In essence she is for sale to the highest bidder. Rogozhin has money that he has obtained from his wealthy father and Totsky has offered Gania Ivolgin, the son in the family of neighbors of Myshkin's, a sizable amount to marry her as well.

The mention of Nastasya is not the only social blunder Myshkin commits. He is utterly open, truthful and transparent, without any social filters. He charms the Epanchin daughters with his guileless nature, in particular the beautiful but spoiled youngest daughter, Aglaya Ivanovna, who is generally regarded as the most marriageable i.e. potentially profitable of the Epanchin daughters.

Summarizing the plot is futile with this novel. After the very compelling, self-contained first part, the novel follows a long and winding maze of letters, subterfuge, erratic, impulsive behavior from highly strung characters, and more than a few 'scandals', the term Dostoevsky gives to public melodramatic scenes. I have never encountered scandals in other 19th century novels, Russian or otherwise, so I conclude that they are a specialty of Dostoevsky's.

Dostoevsky often created doubles, characters that are often two sides of a coin. He even literalized the theme in an early novel, 'The Double'. 'The Idiot' includes a few of them. Myshkin is the angelic counterpart to the demonic Rogozhin, who literally shadows Myshkin throughout much of the novel and on one occasion even attempts to murder him. Myshkin saves his own life with a very timely seizure. He also meets another counterpart, Ippolit Terentyev, a young consumptive who has not long to live and is also consumed with bitter, nihilistic thoughts. He even writes a 'confession' he hoped would be read after he died but can't resist the opportunity to read it to a captive audience while he still lives. Despite the nihilistic philosophy he propounds, it becomes obvious that Ippolit really wants his listeners to feel sympathy or at least pity while he is there to appreciate their concern. He is quite disappointed when he fails to elicit the desired reaction.

The other major set of doubles in the novel is Aglaya and Nastasya. Myshkin loves each of them but the difference between them is that Aglaya is seen as a respectable match whereas Nastasya is considered damaged goods. Each of them is changeable and erratic and despises the other. Myshkin is never seen by anyone as a viable match, however, due to the sickly, passive and unambitious nature he projects. Nastasya loves Myshkin, primarily for how he sees her—blameless and pure. Yet she feels unworthy of him and ultimately feels she deserves Rogozhin. Aglaya loves him and wants to marry him but interprets his hesitation when given an ultimatum to choose either her or Nastasya as a rejection and refuses to see him again.

I have not previously that that Dostoevsky creates vivid, memorable, fully dimensional female characters. However, this latest reading reveals two unexpectedly vibrant women. Nastasya Filippovna's beauty makes it easy for her to be a temptress to many men, and she uses that ability to manipulate them to her advantage. However, her childhood abuse and molestation has decimated her self-esteem and at her core she is still a highly sensitive, fearful child whose psychological scars are so deep that they rule all of her behavior. Lizaveta Prokofyevna, General Epanchin's wife and Myshkin's distant relation, is neurotic, constantly worrying about her daughter's prospects. She likes Myshkin but is wary of him and not quite sure how to handle him. The thought of him as a viable match for one of her daughters terrifies her and, despite the rest of the family members' approval of the idea, she remains skeptical. She also has a habit of bursting social bubbles, cutting through social artifice with blunt declarations. When she utters anything, the reader is never in any doubt about who is speaking.

In contrast, I never felt like I felt I knew what was motivating most of the male characters. Most of them never struck me as much beyond a bundle of contradictory impulses. Myshkin is fully delineated enough that he escapes being a mere Christ figure. His total innocence is depicted convincingly and, whereas he sees the best aspects of everyone he meets and genuinely wants to do good, his gullibility leaves him open to obvious deceptions. When one supposed relative challenges Myshkin's lawful inheritance, Myshkin offers him a generous amount, even after it is proven that the challenger could not be a legitimate heir. The challenger's pride forces him to refuse the offer, yet Myshkin will certainly visit him the next day and repeat the offer. While Rogozhin is the dark contrast to the light of Myshkin, I never really understood what was at the core of him. Why is he so inclined to be violent? What can he gain through subjugation, dominance or murder? There's never any clear justification, as we got in great detail with Raskolnikov in 'Crime and Punishment', for any of his actions. He remained an enigma for me until the end.

Despite the rambling, confusing plot, figuring out who is changing his and her allegiance and why, there are many memorable scenes, many of them 'scandals' in the Dostoevskyian sense, that leap off the page with their vibrant intensity. The near climax of the first part, the extended party at Nastasya Filippovna's house, when she throws cash into the fireplace and challenges Ganya to reach into the flames and pull it out is one. A similar scene occurs when Myshkin is so wound up in the social occasion at which his engagement to Aglaya is to be announced is another. The mention of someone converting to Catholicism triggers a diatribe from him about the evils of the Catholic Church. Better to be an atheist than a believer in such a corrupt system which has inflicted harm and destruction for centuries. As I read this I wondered to what extent Myshkin was a mouthpiece for Dostoevsky's own views. The other attendees attempt to brush it off, to steer him toward another subject, but once started, Myshkin cannot stop. This incident is symptomatic of why it is difficult for aristocratic society to tolerate him.

Ultimately, Myshkin is unable to change people's lives for the better. In fact, many of their fates have been disastrous. At the novel's conclusion, he returns to the idiotic state from which he emerged at the beginning. Can this be taken as proof that the positively good man is completely ineffectual in a corrupt society? Dostoevsky in this novel has endowed his hero with many of his own characteristics—the epilepsy, the distrust of the European church, the obsession with death (Myshkin recalls his reaction to Holbein's painting of the dead Christ which elicited the same reaction in Dostoevsky when he saw it and which was part of his inspiration in writing the novel; he also describes a mock execution which is an almost exact description of Dostoevsky's own near death). It is almost as though Dostoevsky was saying, "I am creating a Christ in my own image. This is a Christ that I can relate to". I don't think that Dostoevsky would necessarily consider the prince to be a failure. I think he would say that it is admirable to strive to be good regardless of the result. I think that as Dostoevsky creates double characters he also creates double resolutions.

The Idiot is one of the finest novels in history, perhaps the finest. In this novel, the enigma that is often referred to as "THE RUSSIAN SOUL" is variously dissected through the different characters and more so by the hero of the story Prince Myshkin. In its simplest explanation, it is a soul with good intentions but faulty in executing the intentions. It is a soul in conflict, driven by the zest for life and a search of its meaning. Certainly the most Christian of Dostoyevsky's novels, THE IDIOT portrays how disastrous a good life can be. Rich in characters, this classic centers mostly on the good Prince Myshkin, a recovering epileptic with a rich soul who is easily perceived as an 'idiot' by the casual observer who focuses on his child-like manners especially in expressing himself and his naivety in dealing with people. But then a closer look reveals that his manners are the reflections of his honest soul, the wealth of his big heart and the broadness of his mind.

And only in deeper engagements does it become evident that Myshkin however has superior understanding and expression, which makes him modest and intelligent rather than stupid. His simple, honest and decent life is succinctly conveyed in his interactions, generating both love and resentment. The saintly Myshkin however struggles to deal with a materialistic world which has no place for the virtuous, and to reconcile his passionate and compassionate love for two women. But the love of the women corrupt and drives men out of their minds. Nastasia Filipovna whom Myshkin has compassionate love for is a tormented soul that can only love Christ and in Myshkin she found that Christ-like figure. Her rival Aglia has Myshkin's heart but failed to understand Myshkin's serene love for her and abandons him to the destructive love of Nastasia.

This is great intellectual work that we should to take seriously in general, a book to read with a serious mindset. Then you will understand the unique nature of Russia which our western minds have difficulties to comprehend. This strange land called Russia that has a bigger soul than any other is explored here in this story in a way that only Dostoyevsky unveils. Read it and you will finish it enriched. The Idiot is a thoroughly enjoyable novel of ideas that explores the nature of man and society and gives you a better idea of man and his actions. You shouldn't find it strange that the characters are philosophical, impulsive, introspective, energetic, colorful, and extreme in their passions. That is Russia, a land of extremes. This book is likely to impact you. It is one of the few of our times. The Idiot, The Union Moujik, War and Peace, The Master and the Margarita and the stories that made me to fall in love with Russian literature.

There are similar characters in four of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s timeless classics: “The Brothers Karamazov,” “Crime and Punishment,” “The Possessed,” and “The Idiot.” These similar characters continue to show up in “Notes from the Underground.” For example saintly Prince Myshkin (the Idiot) looks like an exaggerated version of saintly Alexey (Alyosha) Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov. A combination of Grushenka and Liza from The Brothers Karamazov show up as the femme fatale Anastassya Filippovna in The Idiot.

The Idiot stands out for the helplessness the reader feels as he/she can almost project what’s to come especially when reading the last few hundred or so pages of the book. Born an outcast, yet living among the nobility in St Petersburg high society even with her extreme beauty with almost every wealthy suitor in St Petersburg seek her out, Filippovna is too damaged mentally (for good reasons as back story hints), equally rebellious and even misanthropic and makes sure she makes it known at each opportunity she gets. Even the almost super human and childlike goodness of Myshkin (a man who can never tell a lie and who cannot hate anyone even those who do evil things to him) is inadequate to solve the self-destructive mental trauma of Filippovna. Instead the tables are turned and it is the evil that win over goodness at the end (what’s new-as Dostoevsky illustrates), and it is Myshkin who is lost more than he already is, by being too good in the evil society.

Young Aglaya Ivanovna who matches Filippovna in beauty but born to wealth and power to loving parents (the opposite of Filippovna), yet equally cynical of the society, at early pages of the book seem like a rational alternative to the Idiot and to the femme fatale. For that matter, Aglaya somewhat represents that too perfect woman who is willing to follow the man she loves to the end of the world under all conditions (such as the most beautiful Grushenka standing by dead-broke patricide-suspect Dimitri (Mitya) Karamazov at the end in The Brothers Karamazov and Sonya the prostitute who has suffered all her life then at the end in spite of coming to wealth through a benefactor that could have solved all her problems, moving to Siberia to be close to the isolated murderer Raskolnikov) that Dostoyevsky keeps bringing in most his work.

Both Aglaya and Filippovna fall in love with Myshkin and in turn the Idiot Myshkin loves both and not surprisingly for the wrong reasons. At the end even the intelligent and rational Aglaya cannot resist her jealousy towards Filippovna (or some other unexplainable reason?) and sets the mano-or-mano verbal duel with Filippovna forcing the surprised and helpless victim Myshkin, dragged to watch, the choice of selecting either Aglaya or Filipovna to be his bride. Meanwhile, Myshkin too frozen in horror to act watches the verbal dual unfolding and setting the stage for the most gruesome ending in the book.

According to the notes, one of the best movie directors ever lived, Akira Kurosawa made more than a four-hour long Japanese movie based on “The Idiot” entitled “Hakuchi” (the studio cut it down to the normal length against Kurosawa’s strong objections). That’s a tragedy since I would have loved to see the Kurosawa’s take on “The Idiot” in a four hour movie.

This book is typical of the Russians. It goes on and on and on and on. Great writing but these days conversations are very stunted in comparison. All of which puts the reader off. But if you can wade through all the dialog and enjoy great details you will like this book.

D.E.MacKay

I was interested in this book because it contained the phrase "Beauty will save the world"; and it was written by Fyodor Dostoyevski, a supposed Russian glory. When I read the summary, the premise attracted me: the story of a humble and noble man, caught in the middle of vile to average people, who all thought of him as an idiot, and his ability to shine and prove them wrong.

The first part of the book was compelling, the characters were strong and the narrative smooth and fluid. However, in Part II my interest quickly started to vanish inside the myriad of dull and ordinary characters, impossible to distinguish from each other, and their endless, uneventful, boring, soap-opera like tirades and conversations. The most attractive character from Part I, Nastasia Philipovna, quickly (and surprisingly) fades into oblivion on Part II and the excitement she brought was never replaced by anything.

I decided to stop after I read the most horrid anti-catholic diatribe coming from the Prince. In that moment I had decided I couldn't take it anymore. I guess that was supposed to be Dostoyevski's high moral teaching? That the Catholic Church is the home of the AntiChrist and the house of all evil? Bo-ring!

I don't care what anyone says this book was not worth my time. I feel like "The Idiot"; for having read as far as I did.

Bottom Line First: This is the work of a great Russian writer who needs no new praise. What recommends this particular book to you is that it is not that hard, that grim or that remote. A relatively modest reader can finish this long book, and enjoy great literature. It has a large cast, each with the several names that can make reading Russian novel work. Pay attention to the things that make each character unique and this problem can be managed.

Background: I had struggled with a few of the great books by this great author and decided that he writes beyond my ability. Several frequent the store Reviewers, including at least two who have reviews here, decided to read this book as a common discussion topic. My copy, the paperback Wordsworth Classics edition was given to me by one of the others who have posted a review. Clearly Fyodor Dostoevsky is long past needing any five stars reviews from anyone, so my review is my opinion given with no expectations and absent any remuneration.

My expectation in attempting to read The Id10t (NOTE: I am using this spelling to avoid the store robo -censors) was that I would need to lean heavily on the better readers in our group. What I found instead was a very readable, long Russian novel. Long Russian novels are common, but readable? This is a combination I had not previously experienced. Not only is the novel not overly demanding of the reader, it has extended passages of wry wit and comedy.

This does not mean the book is a comedy. This is a tragedy, in the classic Greek sense of the word.

Prince Lev Mushkin (Lion Mouse if you want a literal Translation) is the Id10T of the title. He arrives back in St Petersburg having lived most of his young life as a semi-impoverished patient in a Swiss Clinic. He is afflicted with epilepsy but believes his condition to be stabilized to the point that he can assume some version of an adult life back in his homeland. He is seeking out a distant relative. His immediate goal is to establish himself as the possible claimant to what will be a large inheritance.

That he is received in any level of Russian Society is as much due to his title and his odd appeal as a social innocent. Prince Mushkin will prove to be a very active member of his upper middle class social circle.

His female counter part is the Beautiful Natasha Filippovna Barashkov. She is the orphan daughter of a middle class family that had died in a railroad accident. She was raised by a character who was grooming her to be his mistress. Her would-be molester finds that she has become too independent and willful. He grants her a substantial cash payment and promptly disappears from the book. While the character and person of Natasha will be one of the main driving element of the rest of the novel, we never get to know her except as the love/lust object of several of the male characters including the Prince.

Enough of the plot.

Dostoevsky brings together a number of sub plots, many characters and some element of pre-revolutionary politics. There is one character in the book who frustrated every reader in our discussion group. More to the point Id10T gives us a complex view the Russia of his day. His characters are believable not so much because they are directly created for us, but because we are allowed to see them as they act and as they are perceived. One of Dostoevky’s achievements in Id10t is that he guides us into seeing his characters more deeply in our imagination than is drawn on the page.

Dostoyevsky is my favorite writer, and this one of his great four long novels. It's probably the least dark of the four, though it's Dostoyevsky, and there is plenty of doom, gloom, and tragedy. Prince Myshkin is one of the saintly, white-knight Dostoyevsky characters, like Sonia in Crime and Punishment and Alyosha is the Brothers Karamazov. But Myshkin far more naive and lacks the strength of Sonia and Alyosha. But he is not a weak "idiot." The Christian philosphy is to some extent naive and pollyannish, and Myshkin's childlike character is a nice device to show the struggle to apply this philosophy in the real, and very evil, world. But it's not Dostoyevsky's intent to poke fun at Christianity, and Myshkin has a strength and integrity all his own.

Ultimately Myshkin charms the world and makes some people better, but like Christ he does not quite succeed in changing human nature. It is Dostoyevky's strength that he gives evil its due -- so much so that one wonders, sometimes, if Dostoyevsky does not ultimately doubt his own Chrisitan philosophy.

The book is full of all sorts of elaborate 19th century high society maneuverings that may tax the patience of some modern readers. But Dostoyevsky is eerily absorbing and the book is certainly worth the effort.

Whatever you do, DON'T READ THE INTRODUCTION!! Linda Ivanits' introduction gives away the ending of the book. I was halfway through the book when I decided to read the introduction to maybe learn a bit more about Dostoevsky's life or thinking at the time he wrote The Idiot or whatever, when I found that she casually drops the ending of the book. I was so angry I literally ripped her introduction out of the book and threw it away.

The book itself is great of course, I mean it's Dostoevsky. It's not his greatest work, here's a ranking for you to have an idea of where it lies.
Best to very very good:
Brothers Karamazov
Crime and Punishment
The Idiot
Demons
Out of his novels, those are the four I've read so far.

If you enjoy endless, pointless, high strung conversations involving a large number of Russian individuals, and very little action, this is the book for you. I have now read more than half the book and still haven't the foggiest notion what it's all about.

This is ridiculous. I have six separate failed attempts at writing a review for this. Every one is different, they are all terible, and nothing does justice to this novel or what it meant to me.
I believe I have just found my new favorite Dostoevsky novel.
Which, of course, also means I may have found my new favorite novel.

A few days ago I was telling a friend of mine how, with his novels, I’m rarely sad once they are over as everything always seems to be wrapped up so nicely that there is simply no more story that needs to be told. This one, however, got me. Despite having based most of my own personal philosophy on The Underground Man (and Meursault) Myshkin is, for me, the most relatable of Dostoevsky’s characters I have thus far encountered, which likely explains the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that arose at the conclusion of the novel.

I can’t imagine that anyone reading this would not want to see themselves reflected in our idiotic prince. Allusions to Christ aside, Myshkin portrays, for the most part, the best parts of being human. The parts that we all know are right, wish we exhibited in our daily lives, but hide for fear of, well, looking like an idiot. Our relationships with one another are fraught with half-truths as we try to save face, play the game, and make ourselves come out on top. Even our relationship with our own Self often suffers from the same lack of honesty as we succumb to the fear of knowing who we really are and having that person be rejected by others. So the fight goes on between Truth and perception and between head and heart. As much as I may want to believe that a pure “heart is the main thing, [and] the rest is nonsense,” Lizaveta Prokofyena may has summed up the lessons of the novel within the first 100 pages as she imparted her wisdom to Aglaya saying, “a fool with a heart and no brains is as unhappy a fool as a fool with brains but no heart.” This idea is even half-reflected by the end of the novel as Ippolit ponders that, “it is better to be unhappy, but to know, than to be happy and live… as a fool.”

Sadly, however, it may have been one of Aglaya’s earliest suitors whose advice is best taken to heart as perhaps it is simply “better not to talk” for I too, “don’t want to be ridiculous; above all, I don’t want to be ridiculous.” Yet speak I do, and ridiculous I become. I find myself on the extremes of this battle between head and heart with the elusive state of moderation mocking me in my attempts to find and define myself in a society unwilling to truly accept anyone as they are. Myshkin seems to innately understand this ongoing battle even as he fumbles for the words to describe his motivations. His “love” for the tragic Nastasya Filippovna is a love of compassion and a love that forgoes his own heart in a misguided attempt to balance the unjust scales on which she is precariously balanced with her true self and society’s perceived notion of her character. Nastasya, for her part, is so enamored with this idea of being taken as she is… of being saved… that she forsakes a love of the heart for this ephemeral idea multiple times throughout the novel in search of a happiness that, ultimately, proves to be her undoing. Myshkin too, out of misguided kindness, finds himself forsaking Love for the idea of playing at being a savior. Again, allusions to Christ notwithstanding, how many of us and how often are drawn to someone whose presence in our life gives us a false sense of belonging, of love, and of self-worth? Making this distinction between compassionate love and Love of the heart has proven my own undoing on more than one occasion as my own appreciation of Self leads me to also believe that “to love this woman passionately would be unthinkable, would be almost cruelty, inhumanity.”

In my heart all I want to do is, “without thinking… raise all anchors and set out for the open sea without checking the weather,” yet I securely fasten myself to the shore too often and too late until the sailing wind has passed. Even as I write this, despite my desire to believe “it would be better for us to be completely sincere with each other,” I understand that laying bare my thoughts and feelings is more apt to attract derision and laughter than any amount of understanding, so in life out from behind this keyboard, I find it easier to stay rooted in silence and to love compassionately rather than fully. So Myshkin puts the question to me as much as to Lizaveta when he asks, “Why are you ashamed of your feelings,” and then drives home the point noting that, “these are your best feelings, why be ashamed of them? You only torment yourself.” That, however, doesn’t work so well either – does anyone ever end up happy? Aglaya, at least, does not end up alone, but how can that be the goal? Prince Shch. becomes the voice of reason and attempts to persuade us all that, “paradise on earth is not easily achieved… paradise is a difficult thing… much more difficult than it seems to your wonderful heart.” Surely we shouldn’t stop trying?

Midway through, Myshkin’s pain is laid bare in what surely must be a universal truth in that, at some point, all of us have felt “superfluous to society.” The epilepsy from which he suffers is symbolic of whatever ill anyone sees within themselves or, perhaps, the ills that society sees within the individual. Whether a physical, emotional, or mental affliction, can anyone say that they have not felt like saying, “my gestures are inappropriate, I have no sense of measure; my words are wrong, they don’t correspond to my thoughts, and that is humiliating for the thoughts?” No matter how convinced we may be that we, “cannot be offended in this house” or that we “are loved more than [we] are worth” are we all not plagued by the self-doubt of knowing that there is “some trace” of our own illness left that we say to those whom we love and who love us “that it is impossible not to laugh at me?” How many times have I wanted to “reach out [my] hand and touch [her] face with my finger in order to feel it?” How often has she been “sitting before [me], and [I] was looking at her, and what she talked about at that moment made scarcely any difference?” Yet I find myself simply wanting to “go away somewhere, to disappear from there completely, and… even like some dark, deserted place, only so that [I] could be alone with [my] thoughts and no one would know where [I] was.” I cannot believe this is simply the lamentations of a sick man searching for his place in society or in the heart of one he loves… it feels too real to be anything less than universal. Is it the curse of the introvert, the weakness of the doubter, or simply a fear though which we all must live that, “the possibility of loving… a man like [me]… would [be] considered a monstrous thing?”

Throughout all of Myshkin’s wandering, Lizaveta’s prodding, and Aglaya’s mean-spirited taunting, it was Ippolit who finally put things in perspective for me. Not from his answers, necessarily, but from his questions. “Why did I actually begin to live, knowing that is was no longer possible for me to begin; why did I try, knowing that there was no longer anything to try?” What a wholly depressing question whose answer, for me, only leads further down the rabbit hole. I think we all try to hold on tighter to something once we see it begin to slip away, even if we didn’t fully understand its value to us when we had it. Whether it’s life itself or Love… which, honestly, what else is “life itself?” I felt like Ippolit’s answer came later in an echo of Myshkin’s earlier fear that his “words are wrong” and “don’t correspond to my thoughts.” Ippolit simply expands the argument of why language can simply never be an accurate representation of ideas as he laments that, “though you may fill whole volumes with writing and spend thirty-five years trying to explain your thought; there always remains something that absolutely refuses to leave your skull and will stay with you forever; you will die with it, not having conveyed to anyone what is perhaps most important in your idea.” Not to say that it is impossible to fully convey your thoughts, but when the outcome of the conveyance is not the one desired, it is easier to believe that you are simply eternally misunderstood than it is to believe you were understood yet still relegated to meaninglessness. Do we continue to hold on to that which is already lost in a vain attempt to ensure we are, at least, understood? But, if we are understood, why are we still losing the thing which we continue to desire? Thankfully there is some solace to be found. We may not get what we want… we may never even feel understood, but “how can you know what share you will have in the future outcome of humanity?” It is folly to underestimate the potential of “what was received from you” that is “passed on to someone else.” In the same way that Bradbury’s butterfly changes the course of history, so too can our most mundane or misunderstood actions create ripples we could never predict. Not only for others but also for ourselves as we “give away part of [our] person and receive into [ourselves] part of another’s; [we] mutually commune in each other; a little more attention, and [we] will be rewarded with knowledge, with the most unexpected discoveries.”

Ippolit continues to delve into some of life’s most important questions as he ponders his own demise and attempts to impart his explanation to his friends (or acquaintances as the case may be). He echoes C.S. Lewis and strikes directly at my own heart stating that, “if it had been in my power not to be born, I probably would not have accepted existence on such derisive conditions.” He begins to grasp the futility of attempting to understand that which cannot be understood and finally arrive at the conclusion that, if we cannot possibly understand, how can we be held to account for that thing which we cannot understand? This was a major occurrence in the novel for me and one that appeared quite unexpectedly… even Ippolit bemoans the fact that religion is simply a topic “we had better leave… alone” once he makes his assertion. “… in spite of all my desire, I could never imagine to myself that there is no future life and no providence. Most likely there is all that, but we don’t understand anything about the future life and its laws. But if it is so difficult and even completely impossible to understand it, can it be that I will have to answer for being unable to comprehend the unknowable?” In this question we see the genesis of some of the themes later expounded upon in The Brothers Karamazov… although it is left alone here, I had to pause and consider this deeply as, again, it was as though the novel was simply holding a mirror to my soul. The connection I believe I felt with Ippolit didn’t end with his words, but in the reaction of those in which he confided. After delivering such a heartfelt and meaningful speech… recognizing the end of his existence… baring his soul… the reaction was yawns, disinterest, and boredom. I couldn’t believe it, and my heart broke. I could hardly blame him for his attempted action. Though it would have saddened me greatly, I nearly wished he had succeeded in his final act of defiance in the face of an uncaring world. Past Ippolit’s sad monologue, I found that I had to combine the thoughts of Myshkin and Nastasya to fully feel myself and my own sadness. It is not loss of life I lament but loss of Love, and it is the moments… the ones not premeditated that stick with me the most. Those that make me know that “never afterwards could [I] forget this meeting with her, and [I will] always remember it with the same pain.” It is those moments… the loss of Love… the loss of friendship… the understanding of never being understood that make me feel as though “I almost do not exist now and I know it; God knows what lives in me in place of me. I read that every day in two terrible eyes that constantly look at me, even when they are not before me.” Knowing that “those eyes are silent now” is the worst possible feeling.

Part Three was, by far, the most engaging and personal for me, but the last section of the novel continue to poke at me and lay the pieces of me I tend to bury on the table and force my attention to them. I suppose that we all do want to be special… universally or, at least, to another person. If we are not, however, do we all tend to look to a source of our problems other than ourselves? “If it hadn’t been for that, I’d certainly have discovered either gunpowder or America!” If it hadn’t been for this… or for that… certainly Love would exist. Or, if Love existed, then certainly whatever I did possess would not have been wasted. Is a lack of Love any worse than its presence without an object to receive that affection? I come to believe that the greatest gift the happy among us can give to the unhappy among us is to, “pass [us] by and forgive [us] our unhappiness.” And is that how we all end up? What, if anything, changed over the course of this narrative? The prince, Aglaya, Ippolit… even our brother – or villain – Rogozhin end with nothing more – and perhaps less – than that with which they began. Some were destroyed by heart and others by head, and all due to a lack of honesty and understanding. The ideal, I still believe, is to be fully open but as if often the case with Dostoevsky, we the Reader are prompted to learn what the characters in the story did not or could not. I am left sad and empty without a clear path… without even a clear destination. It is a rarity in my life that I value the journey over the destination, but this has become one of those rarified moments. I do not think I will approach myself nor others nor my relationship with others in the same way now that this has become a part of who I am. And, really, can I ask anything more? I too have my own green bench. (How is it possible that even the color is the same?) I am sitting there now and return there daily, yet I will never approach it in the same way again. Given another opportunity to find myself in that park I can only hope that I have learned how to mold, accept, and react to myself and others in such a way that head and heart combine to reach a level of happiness and understanding heretofore unknown.

Now I feel as if my pretentiousness in claiming to understand universal truths and my reliance on quotations has pushed my thoughts into the realm of the unreadable. But how can I possibly say anything better than a master who speaks to me so directly an ocean and a century and a half removed? From Love, self-worth, and religion, everything about which I ponder was touched on in this novel. Nearly every passage was deserving of a quotation, and every character reflected a facet of who I believe I am, was, or could be. The novel itself became a character on its own – an amalgamation of extremes and stark contrasts that ultimately congealed into a singular (and often painful) recreation of what life is and a reflection of what I wish it to be. What more can one ask? Perhaps one day The Underground Man and Prince Myshkin will finally meet in the middle, and hopefully I will be there waiting.

While the concept of a Christ figure entering imperialist Russia was very interesting to me, I really struggled to care about the long drawn out soap opera that is The Idiot.

The most interesting thing about this book was the concept of the fallen woman, and how Dostoyevsky was challenging the idea of slut shaming. The character of Nastasya was especially interesting because she sought revenge against those who had done her wrong while simultaneously harboring a large amount of guilt. She reminded me a lot of the character Alaska in John Green's Looking for Alaska, because she seemed strong but at the same time driven mad by guilt in her life. She constantly ran between things that were good for her and things she thought she deserved, was very fickle, and tended to be high strung emotionally.

Nastasya was in direct contrast to Aglaya, who I really didn't find as interesting. To me, she was childish and just wanted to make a romantic decision that would anger her family. However, her childishness did seem to be a good fit for the Prince and she did make him happy in a way that the insane Nastasya could not. The most compelling thing about Aglaya was her references to Don Quixote, which I have just finished reading. Her comparison of the Prince to Don Quixote, is an interesting one, but it shows the inability of the Russian imperialist society to accept a man with as pure morals at the Prince. The story of Don Quixote is about a knight who is so attached to his ideals that he doesn't recognize reality and act accordingly. While the other characters attempt to label the Prince as acting in a similar fashion, they were completely misreading the situation. Instead of blindly loving Nastasya because of baseless chivalry, he loved her because he saw the suffering in her face. This showed how the entire society was constantly trying to project images and perceptions onto others, instead of truly attempting to understand their struggles.

Overall, this book had some really interesting themes and characters and was really interesting to have read especially following War and Peace and Don Quixote, but the overly dramatic story with love triangles and scandalously petty gatherings just didn't draw my interest.

The Idiot is one of the finest novels in history, perhaps the finest. In this novel, the enigma that is often referred to as "THE RUSSIAN SOUL" is variously dissected through the different characters and more so by the hero of the story Prince Myshkin. In its simplest explanation, it is a soul with good intentions but faulty in executing the intentions. It is a soul in conflict, driven by the zest for life and a search of its meaning. Certainly the most Christian of Dostoyevsky's novels, THE IDIOT portrays how disastrous a good life can be. Rich in characters, this classic centers mostly on the good Prince Myshkin, a recovering epileptic with a rich soul who is easily perceived as an 'idiot' by the casual observer who focuses on his child-like manners especially in expressing himself and his naivety in dealing with people. But then a closer look reveals that his manners are the reflections of his honest soul, the wealth of his big heart and the broadness of his mind.

And only in deeper engagements does it become evident that Myshkin however has superior understanding and expression, which makes him modest and intelligent rather than stupid. His simple, honest and decent life is succinctly conveyed in his interactions, generating both love and resentment. The saintly Myshkin however struggles to deal with a materialistic world which has no place for the virtuous, and to reconcile his passionate and compassionate love for two women. But the love of the women corrupt and drives men out of their minds. Nastasia Filipovna whom Myshkin has compassionate love for is a tormented soul that can only love Christ and in Myshkin she found that Christ-like figure. Her rival Aglia has Myshkin's heart but failed to understand Myshkin's serene love for her and abandons him to the destructive love of Nastasia.

This is great intellectual work that we should to take seriously in general, a book to read with a serious mindset. Then you will understand the unique nature of Russia which our western minds have difficulties to comprehend. This strange land called Russia that has a bigger soul than any other is explored here in this story in a way that only Dostoyevsky unveils. Read it and you will finish it enriched. The Idiot is a thoroughly enjoyable novel of ideas that explores the nature of man and society and gives you a better idea of man and his actions. You shouldn't find it strange that the characters are philosophical, impulsive, introspective, energetic, colorful, and extreme in their passions. That is Russia, a land of extremes. This book is likely to impact you. It is one of the few of our times. The Idiot, The Union Moujik, War and Peace, The Master and the Margarita and the stories that made me to fall in love with Russian literature.

My God, I hardly feel worthy of reviewing such a giant of a human being as Dostoyevsky--a man---small in physical stature, cursed with a lifetime of epilepsy and confined for five long, horrific years in a Siberian prison camp---who through it all, in his short lifetime of sixty years--- penned more than fifteen masterpiece novels and as many short stories! There are writers --and then there is Dostoyevsky! Prolific genius--I stand in absolute awe of him.

I don't know what possessed me, but at a very young age--before I had even an inkling of what life and the human experience were about--I decided to read "Crime and Punishment". The challenge of a Russian novel not withstanding, I was held spellbound by the storytelling---storytelling that slowly but inexorably drew me in, like the beckoning arms of an ethereal enchantress. And when I had finished it, I knew that I had experienced something special--something that would occupy a place in both mind and heart for my entirety. I had experienced my first Russian novel, but more importantly--I had discovered Dostoyevsky! I started reading it as a young man but by the time I'd finished it, I was old man--wise and knowledgeable of life and the human condition.

The Idiot is yet one more example of Dostoyevskys' creative genius---his extensive cast of characters and their character development--so typical of Russian novels--leaves you feeling you know them better than your own family.

The hero, Prince Myshkin, recently released from a mental asylum where he'd spent most of his time amongst children, returns to St Petersburg where he must cope as an adult in an adult world of deceit, materialism, matters of the heart and all the frailties of the human condition. He is drawn by love to two diametrically opposite women--both of whom he is destined to loose--is betrayed again and again by men he trusts, and is mocked and pitied by those around him, all for his simple child-like innocense, honesty and goodness. It all ends as most true stories in life end for such characters--in misery, heartbreak and loss--and Myshkin is returned to the asylum after having been driven mad by it all.

Many say that it was Dostoyevskys' intent to portray the Prince as the essential "good man" in society--how he is treated, how he suffers and what becomes of him. It was the same intent as Cervantes when he wrote Don Quixote 250 years earlier. Both stand as veritable masterpieces-- and a warning to those who would be good in society.

DH Koester--"And There I Was" And There I Was, Volume V: A Backpacking Adventure In Turkey, Georgia, Armenia

The first and last sections of The Idiot are interesting, but the middle sections are boring due to lack of action -- there's a lot of walking around and listening to people talk about themselves. Yes, Dostoevsky's novels are about ideas, but he's done better in other of his works. If you've read Demons/The Possessed, then the middle sections of The Idiot read like the first third of Demons. Some of the characters are extremely annoying due to their personalities, but also because of the repetitive nature of the situations they create. The premise of the novel is interesting, and the first section is engaging because it sets up the dynamics of the main character. The last section finally ramps up the action as the main characters finally... finally engage one another, after so long. I was thinking that there was a purpose to all the delay in action -- and there was some pay off when the mysteries started being explained -- but there wasn't enough purpose to justify having to read that many pages.

The real positives of the novel are the ideas in it. Not to spoil them, but the ideas are centered around Christianity. Prince Myshkin, the main character, is a Christ-like figure, and it's interesting to see how he interacts with people "of the world." The dynamics of East and West are present, including a critique of the Catholic church. And, for me, it was interesting to read a portion of Pushkin's poem about a poor knight, because I hadn't read much Pushkin and I don't care much for poetry, but the poem fit well within the themes of the book.

In a world dominated by ambition, "anxiety for the status", carnal lust, and frivolity, a simple person, attentive to the needs of others, deprived of egolatry, and generous, can not be anything but an idiot. This is what people think of prince Myshkin, a destitute young man suffering from epilepsy, who returns to Russia after spending many years in a Swiss hospital. As soon as he reaches Saint Petersburg, he goes in search of a distant relative, married to the prominent general Epantchine. The general introduces him to their three beautiful daughters, and gets him lodging with his secretary, Ganya. All of a sudden, Myshkin gets involved in a sordid intrigue, at the center of which is the femme fatale Anastasia Filipovna, the protege of a fiftysomething degenerate millionaire. Both this guy and Epantchine wish to marry her to Ganya, for whom the prospect offers a considerable fortune... and assured unhappiness. From then on, the plot evolves within a cobweb of twisted passions, treason, envy, violence, and misunderstandings, a furious fighting for -or against- Anastasia's favors, with the characters transporting their actions between Petersburg, Moscow, and the summer resort of Pavlovsk. Added to this are the guys courting each of the Epantchine girls, including the likely marriage between Myshkin and Aglaya, the youngest, prettiest and worst spoiled of the three. Touching every aspect of the plot is the struggle between the destructive impulses of Ragojine (another suitor for Anastasia), and Myshkin's altruism and innocence.

How to separate the novel's plot from Dostoevsky's obsession to contrast Western decadence against the purity of the "Russian soul": the primitive, unpossessive and communist Christianity of Myshkin's? Everybody seems to be looking for one and only one thing in life: the immediate satisfaction of their impulses and desires, and the retribution of whichever offenses, real or imaginary, every character perceives, by whoever happens to be at hand. Clearly, Myshkin is lost in this sea of madness, as soon erected judge, as interested part, or victim of anybody's selfishness. Myshkin is swallowed by the maelstrom of blind ambition and, above all, prejudice.

Right on top of the conceptual sublayers which add density to the novel, Dostoevsky manages to create a fabric of peculiar characters: profound, yet volatile, and, of course, tormented. It forms the triunvirate of major works of its author, along with "Crime and Punsihment" and "The Brothers Karamazov".

This novel is not for the faint of heart. The characters are all overdone and bizarre except for the one character who is considered by everyone else to be an "idiot." But this seems to be the author's intention. This fascinating and tedious story places a finger on some of the broader issues not only in the society of Dostoyevsky's time, but in our time as well. He points out (something like Chesterton) that the world is the sanatorium where the insane seem sane and the sane seem insane. The Quixotic hero with all of his noble motives is consistently misunderstood, caricatured, ridiculed, maligned, and eventually thwarted. The Prince, who comes first as a pauper and second with access to wealth, existed within the culture, but yet was not part of it. He was royally misunderstood by his culture because he was fundamentally different from his culture. And this is due to the Prince's unique moral character which pierces through the shallowness of the surrounding morality of the culture in which he interacts. He loves people for what he can give to them and not what they can do for him. He attempts to rescue those who do not want to be rescued. The Christological significance of the character cannot be diminished. Dostoyevsky pictures us at the fickle Nastasya in the face of the loyal Myshkin. Rogozhin is the crushing and dark force of the novel which faces down all that is good in Myshkin.

I recommend the novel because it is the novel for the stretching mind. If you want a story, yet more than one, this is a great place to start. The work deals with timeless philosophical, psychological, and spiritual themes that transcend culture and geography. I absolutely enjoyed the work.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was a cynic and even somewhat depraved but within the context of an Orthodox Christian, who sought out spiritual redemption in several of his works, not only for himself, but for humanity. Prince Myshkin, the idiot of the title, is often described as a lamb, as a sacrifice, like Christ, who grieves for the sins and the misery of those around him, without understanding their sins. Dostoevsky's intention was, "to depict a completely beautiful human being".

Myshkin verges on being unsatisfactory as a protagonist because of his selfless goodness which generates a lack of sexual energy and force, save that his unaffected sanctity inspires a rage in others who compete to inspire him with the commission of some sin or selfish act. But Dostoyevsky changed his original prince who is redeemed as one who was proud and demonic, an arson and the rapist of his adopted sister, and an uxoricide. But these early sins are glossed over in the published story where the prince moves in a dreamy state of grace among robbers and philanderers who look to him for some guidance out of their own angst.

A dominant and thematic image is Holbein's portrait of Christ taken down from the cross, a copy of which hangs in Rogozhin's house, being a Christ, perhaps like the listless Myshkin, who is dead, without any prospect of a possible future resurrection. By way of contrast, Rogozhin is driven to distraction by his infatuation for the femme fatale, Anastassya Filippovna.

The universal horror of death is articulated through Myshkin in part through the illustration of the execution by guillotine of a French murderer, where death is certain and ineluctable. The certainty of death is also impressed by the death of the consumptive, Ippolit, who pathetically over-values his own life when he writes a suicide note entitled " Après moi le Déluge ". Rogozhin does escape death for a time, when he transported to Siberia for his murder of Anastassya Filippovna, where he is haunted by death. The prince himself suffers a death of mind, a peace of oblivion, as he sees Rogozhin standing over the corpse of Anastassya.
The ultimate hope for sinning humanity is the peace of forgetfulness not only of one's own sins, but of the sins of others.

The Idiot (Vintage Classics)

The Idiot is one of the finest novels in history, perhaps the finest. In this novel, the enigma that is often referred to as "THE RUSSIAN SOUL" is variously dissected through the different characters and more so by the hero of the story Prince Myshkin. In its simplest explanation, it is a soul with good intentions but faulty in executing the intentions. It is a soul in conflict, driven by the zest for life and a search of its meaning. Certainly the most Christian of Dostoyevsky's novels, THE IDIOT portrays how disastrous a good life can be. Rich in characters, this classic centers mostly on the good Prince Myshkin, a recovering epileptic with a rich soul who is easily perceived as an 'idiot' by the casual observer who focuses on his child-like manners especially in expressing himself and his naivety in dealing with people. But then a closer look reveals that his manners are the reflections of his honest soul, the wealth of his big heart and the broadness of his mind.

And only in deeper engagements does it become evident that Myshkin however has superior understanding and expression, which makes him modest and intelligent rather than stupid. His simple, honest and decent life is succinctly conveyed in his interactions, generating both love and resentment. The saintly Myshkin however struggles to deal with a materialistic world which has no place for the virtuous, and to reconcile his passionate and compassionate love for two women. But the love of the women corrupt and drives men out of their minds. Nastasia Filipovna whom Myshkin has compassionate love for is a tormented soul that can only love Christ and in Myshkin she found that Christ-like figure. Her rival Aglia has Myshkin's heart but failed to understand Myshkin's serene love for her and abandons him to the destructive love of Nastasia.

This is great intellectual work that we should to take seriously in general, a book to read with a serious mindset. Then you will understand the unique nature of Russia which our western minds have difficulties to comprehend. This strange land called Russia that has a bigger soul than any other is explored here in this story in a way that only Dostoyevsky unveils. Read it and you will finish it enriched. The Idiot is a thoroughly enjoyable novel of ideas that explores the nature of man and society and gives you a better idea of man and his actions. You shouldn't find it strange that the characters are philosophical, impulsive, introspective, energetic, colorful, and extreme in their passions. That is Russia, a land of extremes. This book is likely to impact you. It is one of the few of our times. The Idiot, The Union Moujik, War and Peace, The Master and the Margarita and the stories that made me to fall in love with Russian literature.

I had read Crime and Punishment some six or seven years back, and admired in thoroughly, but I hadn't read another novel by the master author Fyodor Dostoevsky until now. The Idiot is a thoroughly engrossing, intelligent read, even if probably not quite up to the author's most well know masterpiece.

The novel tells the story of Myshkin on his return to Russia after years of medical treatment for illness in Switzerland. On the train ride to Petersburg he meets two of the principle characters of the book, Rogozhin and Lebedyev. He proceeds to meet various other figures of society, and falls in love with two very different women, upper-class and proper Aglaia Ivanovna and scandalous Nastasya Filippovna, for very different reasons (how much they love him back is an open question). But as well devoped as those characters are, it is Myshkin, the idiot title character, who holds our attention from beginning to end, and though sometimes he frustrates us mostly he's a very sweet, honest and strange soul. Without such an enduring protagonist this novel simply wouldn't hold together like it does.

Dostoevsky's style can frustrate even the most patient readers on occasion. Even considering how Russia mid-19th century had different social norms than society today, it's not believable that people would stand around during general conversations and listen to speeches that in certain instances would take an hour or more to conclude. That said there's a poetic nature that's very admirable, and even when it meanders, forcing me to read over certain passages several times to try to understand what certain people (Ippolit and Lebedyev in particular) were talking about, I was usually always entertained. The topics of politics, religion, and social order are entwined nicely, even while a lot of it I have to admit went above my head.

I think after I read Crime and Punishment again, and maybe check out another Dostoevsky work, I'll give The Idiot another read. Like any great Russian novel one read just isn't enough to give one a very full comprehension. I'm not sure The Idiot is a masterpiece, but it a great novel. It's epic, fascinating, comedic and sometimes sad, and always you know you're at the helm of a master in Dostoevsky.

I say Dostoevsky's The Idiot is "Jane Austen on steroids," because it's all about marriage and who will marry whom and all the vertiginous machinations leading up to the betrothals. And the main characters are aristocratic, idle, young, and self-centered. But Dostoevsky is a much more violent, impulsive, confusing, psychological, dark, brooding, energetic, and confusing author than Austen.

I do not usually write the store reviews of great classics that I read, and I certainly would not dream of trying to summarize or critique The Idiot, but I have a two recommendations for readers who may be new to this monumental novel.

1. Dostoevsky stands at the beginning of modernism in literature. His narrator has no consistent point of view. Sometimes "he" is omniscient, at other times as baffled and confused as the characters (and reader). Often characters do not complete sentences, are unclear in their statements, as is the narration. The author indulges in frequent passages of Henry Jamesian obscurity. This is meant to represent the addled state of the characters' own feelings and intellects. But it makes for challenging reading. To add to the difficulty we no longer understand the courtship and marriage mores that have changed so much or completely disappeared.

I found that I had to read through this immense novel twice in order to get a good sense of the events and people. This is worth doing. The second reading was much more rewarding. I would also recommend getting a section by section plot summary and analysis--available online.

2. To add to those problems, Russian names are very confusing and characters are referred to by many different names, nicknames, titles, etc. I had to keep a list of all the characters with me while reading. The list you use must include their full names and nicknames and they should be arranged by family. I found a good list online.

Despite the obstacles, I am glad that I made this effort to understand and participate in The Idiot. This is a brilliant, wonderful novel. It is one of my great memorable treasures of a lifetime of avid reading.

I would also like to share a thought about all of Dostoevsky's writings. One aspect of his work that I especially appreciate and value is that Dostoevsky's main characters are men who do not fit in with society, who are orthogonal to normal society, who are isolated, awkward, suffering from Asperger's syndrome perhaps. I am thinking of Myshkin (the idiot), Roskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, and of course The Underground Man. Dostoevsky portrays these characters sympathetically, but not forgivingly, and with deep psychological insight. He is also deeply sensitive, as is Austen, to the troubled, complex, painful, and loving relations between parents and their young adult children.

I forced myself to read this book to the end because it is a classic, Dostoyevsky is hailed as a good writer, and I am an English major. I have to say the only idiot is the idiot who reads this book to the end. The theme is I love you. . . I hate you. . . I love you. . . . I hate you . . . ad nauseum. The characters need to get a job and go to work. They have too much time on their hands. Spare yourself the misery!

After reading the amazing "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground", I was eager to read "The Idiot". I was captivated from the very beginning. The Prince, Nastasia, Rogojin, and Mrs. Epanchin were wonderful characters. The theme of undeserved guilt and self-destruction was played to the fullest in Nastasia; no human heart will fail to cry for her tragedy. But I think the Prince is an even greater literary feat. Just as it is harder to write a great comedy than a great tragedy, it is harder to portray a convincing saint than a delicious villain. I still cannot wrap my mind around the fact that for all his crazy drowning patience, innocence, generosity, and love, the Prince managed to evoke adoration rather than nausea. He is a saint, a sheep, a child, and I as the reader stand witness to his moving and natural beauty. Trust me, I am one of those cynics who will roll my eyes out of their sockets whenever I read about "supreme" characters that their own creators rave about. The scenes themselves are magnificent emotional storms that toss readers along with the characters, each wave bigger than the last. The infamous $10,000 scene alone was worth the read and is simply one of the most powerful pieces I have ever encountered. FD is the Master in peeling away at human nature - you think this must surely be the last layer, when he suddenly reveals another and you start feeling you have expected it all along.

The novel was nothing short of awe-inspiring up to midway, when suddenly it lost steam. Indeed, I think it would have been perfect had it stopped right after the $10,000 scene or the hotel fit scene. As it is, the story went on and our poor Prince was dragged like a sheep-for-slaughter into a *drumroll* puppy love story. But of course nothing by FD is really pointless. If anything, it spoke clearly as to why most saints were not too crazy about romance, because it is an inherently petty and selfish business, one that big-hearted Prince is clearly not cut out for. Aglaya is just a pretty, sharp, arrogant, immature, spoiled little tyrant, nothing more, nothing less. At one point FD described a character as one who was "from head to foot permeated and saturated with the longing to be original... though he may possibly imagine himself a man of genius and originality, none the less has within his heart the deathless worm of suspicion and doubt". It struck me that Aglaya fits squarely into this class of dissatisfied "clever commoner" who forever torments and self-torments. Prince was her one and only "originality".

Glaring flaws pop up in the second half. The confession by Hippolyte, which supposedly mirrored the ravings in the brilliant "Notes", was an unexpected bore. In fact, the novel would be much better without this tiresome character altogether. I cannot for the life of me figure how this happened under the same pen. I was surprised at how dull I find Hippolyte to be, when he is supposed to be so interesting with his extreme egotism and cynicism. Thereafter I skipped General Ivolgin's long story about Napoleon - I never dreamt of skipping a word written by FD. Even the Epanchin party scene seemed a little contrived, as if the adorable Prince was suddenly reprogrammed to become a clown for the heck of it. As I drudged through these pages I screamed WHAT HAPPENED? I confess I held FD to a standard too high, but no, I'm not going to accept less from one of the best writers in history! Being the genius he was, FD himself seemed to realize the holes and wrote "...we feel that we have already given to this secondary character in our story more attention than we originally intended", "It was so unlike his usual timid self-constraint; so inconsistent with his usual taste and tact, and with his instinctive feeling for the higher proprieties". These stick out as little "to-fix" notes to himself. Unfortunately FD never had the time to carefully revise his novels, which is certainly a big tragedy in literature. In the end I had to accept that "The Idiot" is like its title character - showing the noblest, purest, most beautiful qualities you can ever find on earth, yet who is subject to damaging fits that dismay all. The second half never quite picked up back to standard, although the ending is befitting for each character, especially Aglaya (I am relieved that FD treated her as what she really is). Read and treasure the majestic first half, and forgive the mediocre second half. I was glad I did.

r Dostoyevsky, The Idiot

Dostoyevsky wrote The Idiot during his sojourn in Europe (1867-71) where he had fled to escape his creditors. His obsession with gambling and the powerful impression made on him by Hans Holbein's figure of Christ taken from the cross are key motifs in the novel, which is dominated by the contrasting themes of acquisitiveness and Christian charity. Prince Myshkin, the Idiot and central figure, like his author, returns to Russia after four years in `civilised' Europe, where he has suffered poverty and epileptic fits. It is these seizures, as well as his childlike innocence that have led to him being dubbed `the idiot' by most of his fellow citizens.

In a novel of over 600 closely packed pages and crammed with up to a hundred characters, the Prince is the sole touchstone of goodness. His frankness and innocence are seen by many as stupidity. He is even accused of vice and cunning when being simply disarmingly honest. He is often used as a pawn by calculating figures, such as the `villain' Rogozhin and the beautiful `fallen' woman, Nastasya Filippovna. To the Prince these are desperately unhappy people whom he seeks to rescue, but without success. He is trapped between two equally beautiful and impulsive young women, Nastasya Filippovna (full name used throughout) and Aglaya Yepanchin, the youngest of General Yepanchin's three unmarried daughters. The Prince, who confesses love and seems to have proposed marriage to both, is torn between their needs and his own need to save them from their darker selves. Both women have several suitors, some offering respectable futures, others desperate passion. Myshkin moves tortuously between both, giving advice, chasing after them, offering his disinterested love, yet in his heart knowing that he is a hopelessly laughable suitor.

Behind the love stories there are several recurrent themes that continually resurface, most notably the position of Russia in Europe - what it means to be a true Russian in a continent where the natives are seen as backward and uncivilised peasants. Tolstoy, too, was much concerned with this question, although to Dostoyevsky both he and Turgenev (with whom he quarrelled when in Europe) were contaminated by French and German influences. In fact the Prince, just before the onset of one of his epileptic seizures, uncharacteristically breaks silence, bursting out with a long tirade, inveighing against nihilists, Jews, atheists and the Catholic Church, much to the embarrassment of his hosts, the Yepanchins, who are, with other notables, about to celebrate his engagement to Aglaya, their youngest daughter. In other scenes, long speeches on legal, commercial, political and spiritual matters are given by others, but in these the Prince is either absent or remains quiescent. And of course there are always `the woman question' and the land ownership question, together with a sense of a decline in spiritual values.

I am not sure whether the modern reader will appreciate the rather old-fashioned narrative modes that Dostoyevsky employs in this novel. There are constant asides to the reader, telling us for example that `the motives of human actions are usually infinitely more complex and varied than we are apt to explain them afterwards, and can rarely be defined with certainty.' One is a little reminded of George Eliot, the Wise Woman who couldn't resist pointing a moral to adorn a tale. Then there is the position of the narrator himself, who confesses to being often absent at crucial times and being reduced to interpreting gossip or making speculation as to what might have happened. Chapter 9 of Part Four, for instance, begins with a Fielding-like introduction, putting the reader in the picture with `A fortnight has passed since the events described in the last chapter, and the position of the characters of our story had changed so much that we find it extremely difficult to continue without certain explanations. Yet we feel that we have to confine ourselves to a bare statement of facts, if possible, without any special explanations, and for a very simple reason: because we ourselves find it difficult in many instances to explain what took place ...' The digression continues and the reader waits impatiently. Of course the delaying tactic is a novelist's stock-in-trade, but Dostoyevsky, in this novel at least, occasionally oversteps the bounds of decency. Much of the `action' indeed is told through unreliable gossips or malicious liars. Myshkin goes missing for long periods and we are constantly given letters of distraught repentance, passionate love and regret (often false). Yes, our narrator, as he explained above, has a miserable time getting to the facts behind appearance and conjecture.

But these are perhaps minor quibbles in what is for the most part an intriguing and surprisingly convincing tale of a basically good and honest man in a nest of vipers. We have here again the solitary soul, the alienated Underground Man, but now resurfaced in the world of high society. The absorbed reader follows Prince Myshkin's encounters with drunks, braggarts, liars, deceivers, gamblers, lechers and murderers, from the streets of Petersburg to the country estate of Pavlovsk. Although the novel climaxes with a terrible murder, it is a less dark novel than the author's earlier Crime and Punishment - in fact it is at times extremely funny, for example when the sisters collapse with laughter over the Prince's revelation on seeing the donkey (ie himself) after a dream - but the theme of redemption through Christian suffering is paramount. Prince Myshkin embodies Christian values, but without being in the least evangelical or doctrinaire. He is able to laugh at himself and his foolishness - for he is often gauche and embarrassed in company - even managing, in spite of dire warnings, to break his hostess's precious Chinese vase in the exuberant outburst noted above. This is indeed a remarkable portrayal: - a Christ-like figure with no dignity and a keen sense of humour.

My third Dostoevsky. As is usual with this author, I feel the story has a magnetic pull over me that I can barely resist. Hard to put down and hard not to come back to. Which is strange as most of the characters are so weird especially their unreasonable, unnatural swings of emotions, something I detest. Some of the characters seem to be practically insane or at least emotionally unstable. The way the story ends is quite shocking and demonstrates more insanity.

This book is quite shocking to the senses. After some thought, I am forced to conclude that The Idiot is the only novel that can challenge Middlemarch as the very best novel I have ever read. I can't really say it has toppled Middlemarch though as I do not see any way in comparing a novel that's emotionally disturbing with one that's ruled by severe sobriety.

Now that I've finished his three most popular novels, it's time to venture into his less well known works. Let's see if they are as equally compelling.

The Idiot is a fascinating portrayal of Russian aristocratic society in full pre-revolutionary decadence. An inherited income or influence in high places is a social necessity since financial ruin is always just around the corner. The highest rated virtue is the ability to make entertaining and clever conversation, hence displaying your status as a member of the educated elite.

Dostoevsky fancies himself as a tale-teller, thus we are always being treated to "stories within the story". A character will relate an incident that is unrelated to the main narrative, largely it seems so that the novelist can display his virtuoso skills. There's also plenty of authorial intrusion where the reader is addressed directly, which breaks the illusion of reality, although this was typical of the era. The technique occasionally gives the book a weirdly post-modern feel.

The novel is nonetheless full of zest. High life and low life mix promiscuously, while fortunes rise and fall. If at times the narrative seems directionless and overly discursive, there's still a lot of fun to be had along the way.

"The Idiot", writen by Fyodori Dostoyvsky who was borm om 1821 and died in 1881. This is an excellent book but filled with human characteristics of mental and physical illness, love, pain, and murder. The plots unfold slowly with great mystery. The writer is grand in the use of words and characterizations of his group of partipants and gives each one a specific personality.

The leading character suffers from being an idiot with a known history of a learning disabilty and over the years has spent time with a physican and has become almost normal but continues to have some childhood traits. He is released from treatment and finds himself headed to St. Peterburg on a train where he becomes friends with a fellow traveler. He is taken into confidence by a relative and her husband, and three daughters. He takes lodging with a family that is known to the relative. There, a certain lady appears and furies fly. He is emotional taken with this lady. Later he finds out that he has come into money and is quite well off. All kinds of drama occurs and final he takes up with the above lady, but she leaves him for the rival. He returns to St. Peterburg and become a part of the establishment. He is in love with the daughter of his relative plus the other lady who consents to marry him, however he is left at the altar as she flees with his rival. The idiot returns to his rival's house where the lady in question is found dead, the rival is convicted of murder and the idiot reduced to insanity with a poor prognois. He is returned to his former physician in a vegetative state.

An excellent book with detailed plots, there were many plots and elegant speeches in this book. Well written and ever unfolding mysteries.

SPR

War and Peace (Cambridge World Classics) Critical Edition (Annotated) (Complete Works of Leo Tolstoy / Complete Works of Leo Tolstoi)
Ana Karenina (Spanish Edition)

This is the second time I have read this book. The first time was in college and, back then, I read the Henry and Olga Carlisle translation. This time I read the free Kindle version, translated by Eva Martin. I have seen a bit of discussion here online about which translation is the better one, and there are other translations as well.

I can't say which is better because I truly don't know. I will only tell you that I read a couple chapters of my Carlisle translation while my Kindle was recharging and, except for the name differences, I didn't notice much difference.

I like this kind of book because it is simple and complex at the same time. The love triangle between Prince Muishkin, Parfen Rogojin and Nastasia Philipovna is a love story taken to tragic extremes and Muishkin's complicated character is one that you want to understand. Muishkin is often described as a Christ figure. I am no expert and cannot comment on these observations, but I would like to learn more. There are many other themes and symbols which merit discussion, but I will not do that here, either.

My favorite character is Muishkin and the innocent way in which he navigates through the people who try to take advantage of him. And I love the contrast between what people think of him and the things he says.

My favorite part of the book, and the reason I re-read it, is the party scene with Muishkin and the vase, how he tries to avoid even getting near it, yet still winds up right next to it, and the disaster that follows.

There are many other central characters and it helps to make a list. I enjoyed Dostoyevsky's depiction of these additional characters, particularly the Epanchins, Lebedeff, General Ivolgin, Gania, Colia, and Hippolyte. These and a multitude of other side characters all seem to serve a specific purpose in the author's social, religious and political commentary.

This is not a light read, but it is worth the effort.

I had read just two Dostoevsy novel before this - 'The Brothers Karamazov' and 'Notes from the Underground', but lots of Turgenev and some other Russians - Kropotkin, Goldman, .... I also have some connection with Russian people because some of my work colleagues are Russian ex-patriots (one even carries a family name mentioned at one point in 'The Idiot').

Russian naming is difficult for those of us who do not have the Russian background, and 'The Idiot' was hard to keep straight in my mind - I probably didn't feel comfortable with names to near the end of this very long novel. There's Pavlovitch and Pavlischtev - not the same person. The hero Myshkin is also Lyov Nikolayevitch. Gavril is also Ganya (the short form of his name). With a large suite of characters, tracking these names is not easy. Perhaps a publisher/translator might provide a guide for non-Russian readers. I did find some connection through my knowledge of music: Madame Epanchin, Lizaveta Pokofyevna reminded me of Prokofiev, and the young man dying of consumption, Ippolit, reminded me of Ippolitov-Ivanov.

This novel is a psychological thriller and it may be unbelievable to most readers. How did Dostoevsky know that there are people in the world like Myshkin - perhaps he was one himself, perhaps he observed and understood one. Myshkin, perhaps because of his own 'illness' is attuned to everyone else's needs - sacrificing his own needs as totally without value. So what happens when two women fall in love with him (strange though each of them is)? He wants to love them both. Neither can accept that, but still he cannot let go. This seems to be a recipe for disaster (and in some ways it is), but Myshkin flourishes where he might not have because he has the most extraordinary view of the value of every moment of life. Early on he describes a guillotine execution he had observed and how the man being executed clung to every moment of his life - trying to maximise the richness of it even as the blade came down on his neck. Does Dostoevsky really believe that this is an idiotic way to live life? Or is he recommending that we should all pay more attention, be less flippant with the time that passes us by?

One of the women who fall in love with Myshkin is one of Madame Epanchin's daughters - Aglaia Ivanovna. Despite her love, Aglaia torments Myshkin (but that's not of much significance to him). Here is a quote that meant so much to me - a real insight into Myshkin's personality. 'There is no doubt that the mere fact that he could come and see Aglaia, again without hindrance, that he was allowed to talk to her, sit with her, walk with her was the utmost bliss to him; and who knows, perhaps, he would have been satisfied with that for the rest of his life.'

This novel is hard work, and it's not a happy story. But it is rewarding in its insight into human nature. If you read it you will have to decide for yourself if people like Myshkin actually do exist. And if you happen to meet one - how should you interact with them?

other recommendations:
explore the philosophy of phenomenology - I don't have a preferred book to suggest
as a contrast - 'Spring Torrents' - Ivan Turgenev (the author is mentioned in 'The Idiot')
'Under Western Eyes' - Joseph Conrad
'Sylvie and Bruno' - Lewis Carroll

It should be known to most students and readers of Dostoyevsky that he suffered most of his adult life from a severe condition of epilepsy. The seizures from this disease can vary in intensity from the mild to the point where it is so intense, that the individual's heart will simply stop from the violent convulsions. Those afflicted with this condition have commented that after an attack, calmness washes over them and a feeling of deep clarity prevades. A few individuals, including the great Russian writer have claimed that they experienced something akin to a spiritual awakening, only lasting a few moments and sometimes a few hours. The protagonist in The Idiot, Prince Myshkin, also suffers from epilepsy, and therefore has earned the cruel nickname of `Idiot' from his circle of friends and acquaintances. The novel centres on this man and the profound affects he has on those he comes in contact. The Idiot is a nineteenth century thriller, an exposé of Russian aristocracy, intense, unrequited love and spiritual redemption. A semi-autobiographical piece that is one of Dostoyevsky's better novels.

Prince Myshkin's simpleton demeanour, his almost child-like view of the world - naïve, terribly honest and soft good looks - projects to other characters in the novel as someone with saintly qualities, an almost Christ-like aura surrounds him that most perceive when they first meet the man. Having had epilepsy from birth, he has been raised under very controlled circumstances, to finally move into the world without societies basic prejudices and biases. The Prince lacks because of his innocence, the decorum of the then Russian aristocracy. He also has a gift. The Prince has great intuitive insight into the souls of the people he meets. And because he lacks in the social graces, he more often than not will blurt out what he feels with uncanny accuracy, embarrassing the people present. Although he has great insight, there is a dark side, and a price he will eventually have to pay.

The female protagonist is a fascinating woman. Nastasya Filippovna is a person with an incredible strength of will that she uses for her tacit manipulations of the numerous fawning, stumbling men that constantly grovel around her. This woman's mere presence, her stunning beauty all combine to make a very powerful woman. However, below this persona of strength, is an extremely insecure little girl, who only requires love.

Rogozhin is the novel's psychopath, a rogue and scoundrel of the first order. Everything that we could possibly mistrust in a person, Rogozhin personifies as he, without conscience, hurts and manipulates those around him with adept skill.

This is a beautiful novel as it communicates our spiritual concerns though represents our darker natures in insightful ways. The Idiot is a dramatic tragedy, a satire on Russia's aristocracy and a reflection about our dual natures, possessing the capacity for so much good, but also capable of so much evil.

This is a novel written with vividness and extreme passion as only this Russian master can give us. Excellent.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's 'The Idiot' is - even with such classics as 'Crime and Punishment' and 'The Brothers Karamazov' - a stand-out and major work from his oeuvre.

Its protagonist is one of literature's most sublime creations, for sure; a character so remarkable, complex and unique that only a genius mind who has such an elevated understanding of the human condition, such as Dostoyevsky's, could've been responsible for its creation. Prince Myshkin is Dostoyevsky's attempt to fulfill the ideal of the "perfect" human being and how this ideal collides with the reality of the modern world and in Prince's Myshkin experiences with the world, we get one of the most intricate mirror images reflecting back our condition. In Myshkin we can see a human being who is one with the world despite being at odds with said world. We go along with him in his experiences and their outcome make for one of the many pleasures of 'The Idiot'.

Another of its pleasures is its narrative simplicity opposed to its thematic complexity. Dostoyevsky thrives in taking opposites and making them clash and this is where the novel finds much of its greatness and tremendous drive. It can be deeply contemplative one moment and then furiously impulsive the next, very simple and light and suddenly extremely dark and complicated, howling in its hilarity and then tragically sad, pristine and clear passages of direct reality give to moments of almost hallucinogenic unconsciousness.

More so than that, Dostoyevsky gives what is probably the greatest indictment against the death penalty and one of the most incisive against the Catholic church, a most heart-wrenching take on mortality, a most intoxicating and fascinating view on the nature of love and compassion, one of the most powerful statements on the problematic of faith in an uncaring world (nearly matching Ivan Karamazov's "Grand Inquisitor" speech) and one of the most eloquent and perfect statements on the essence of belief. This novel is jam-packed with a greatness of ideas and philosophy.

Probably more so than in 'The Brothers Karamazov', in 'The Idiot' Dostoyevsky creates his richest, most deeply human cast of characters and he masters the polyphony of voices to an even greater degree. More than anything, 'The Idiot' is about the way we live and approach the world and its creatures. Dostoyevsky gives us a bunch of people who are deeply flawed as they are diverse and yet contain a very redemptive, humanly recognizable quality; through the Prince's eyes and view, the viewer gets to share what divine love is on earth and with such a view Dostoyevsky's puts us at the crux of the problematic of the human condition. Can we strive, let alone, attain the ideals of Prince Myshkin in a world where selfishness and materialism rule? Dostoyevsky doesn't give us any easy answers and leaves the reader with a paradox until the very ambiguous end. In what is probably the most despairing moment of the entire novel, the character of Ippolit argues in his letter that Christ himself was destroyed by the world and that the way he looked at the moment of his demise could make even the most staunch believers lose their faith. Was Prince Myshkin destroyed by the world at the end of the novel? Was his love too great for him, a man, to bear it? Did he really go insane or he just revealed the insanity of the world? Or is there actually hope for love, hope for life? Dostoyevsky gives the reader a haunting impression of the state of the world and makes the reader ponder about the way they interact with life.

Read 'The Idiot' and be illuminated by Dostoyevsky's understanding of life, challenged by his approach to the world and inspired by Prince Myshkin. This novel is definitely a timeless masterpiece and along with Dostoyevsky's own 'The Brothers Karamazov', one of literature's greatest creations.

The praise on the back cover of "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky hearlds it as a novel that explores the psyche of the Russian people. The plot synopsis tells readers that the main character, Prince Myshkin, is a saintly man, who comes into society an innocent and must struggle to remain pure while coming to terms with two very different women who love him and the ways of the world. This prince is also the 'idiot' of the title, this idiocy due to the effects of epilepsy, but perhaps owing more to his naivete and general lack of knowledge.

Prince Myshkin, also known as Lyov Nikolayevitch, has spent the past four years in Switzerland, being treated for his illness. Upon his return to Petersburg, he seeks out a long-lost distant family member and susequently comes into wealth due to his benefactor's death. He is immediately thrown into a love triangle that involves his uncle's clerk and a woman who is known to be another man's mistress. Upon meeting this supremely beautiful woman, Prince Myshkin offers himself in marriage; the young woman accepts him at first, but then runs off with another man who has offered her a vast sum of money. Prince Myshkin follows them, but while thwarted in his efforts he is forever haunted by this notorious woman, even as he pursues the love of another.

While Dostoevsky is a great storyteller, and has written at least two masterpieces, the narrative of "The Idiot" does a lot more telling than showing. The reader is told an awful lot of things, like how Prince Myshkin isn't as idiotic as people think he is, and how good he is, but it doesn't show this through his actions or words. He is constantly taken in by people who want his money and he waffles excessively between the two women he supposedly loves. Indeed, there are few if any likeable characters within the novel, as they almost all try to take advantage of the prince or laugh at him to his face, including both of his love interests.

And while there is some examination of the Russian people, it seems rather disjointed from the narrative at hand. There is a wide cast of characters, each minutely described, and several who give speeches at great length that solely slow down the narrative and do not enhance it. At nearly six hundred pages in length, there is much that seems like it could have been edited, and it is at times difficult to keep the numerous characters straight due to Dostoevsky's simultaneous use of full names and nicknames. However, "The Idiot" stands as a classic of Russian literature, painting a stark picture of the haves and have-nots, and examining how those people treat a poor 'idiot' who is too good for his own sake.

Dostoevsky wrote The Idiot after his much praised Crime and Punishment, so it is only fitting that this novel wouldn't have received the same acclaim of this masterpiece. And, while this novel doesn't have the sharp, precise narration and pull that Crime and Punishment had, it still is a significant work for what it strives to accomplish--the depth of the individual spirit.

Dostoevsky once wrote, "They call me a psychologist. That is not true, I'm only a realist in the higher sense; that is, I portray all the depths of the human soul." It's fitting he said this, because this novel exacts this same belief in many ways--many of the characters save the hero Prince Myshkin are greedy, shallow, conceited, scandalous, and back-stabbing. Yet with all the negative aspects of society, Myshkin brings a benevolent force and reaction to those who encounter him--some are affected in a positive light, if only for a small amount of time, while others remain without change. The great contrast gives credence to the depth of Prince Mushin, and for the most part makes his title "the idiot" quite ironic. His soul is examined and tested in many facets of life.

Prince Myshkin's "immovability" is depicted in encounters with various scandals and controversies. He doesn't change to conform to the conditions of society, and often doesn't seem to be swayed by greed or other pleasures, which sometimes leads to a strange reaction for those who meet him. Consider his first encounter with Aglaia and her family, when Madame questions him about who he is. Rather than being typical, he relates a story about Maria in the Swiss village and this gives a clue as to his idea of what love is. He feels a genuine pity for a girl, despite the fact that he doesn't really "love" her in a serious sense. This tale illustrates the sacrifice that the Prince often makes for people. This story makes a deep impact on Aglaia, even though she often laughs at Myshkin for his simplicity. Dostoevsky does a fantastic job of making the Prince both innocent and introspective at the same time; he is more reflective than other characters and is driven by philosophy and good will rather than worldly gains.

The main crux of the story is Prince Myshkin and the love triangle between two distinctly different women--Aglaia and Nastassya Filippova. Aglaia, despite her childlike quality, seems to have instances where she is close to bursting forth into adulthood. However, her restlessness makes it difficult for anything to happen between her and the Prince. Meanwhile, Nastassya Filippova is a character who is outwardly a scandalous woman unfavorable and unequal to the Prince. Inwardly, she is has moments when it appears that there could be some genuine love for the Prince, but these are negated by her relationship with Rogozhin. One of the flaws of Prince Myshkin is trying to appeal and love both women in his singular way. He ultimately must choose, but cannot.

There are some moments when the novel gets a bit bogged down with its "soap opera" like quality or long winded-speeches, but, still, this is a novel with many redeeming qualities. I think this one will appeal much more to those who have already read Dostoevsky and understand his style.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's 'The Idiot' is - even with such classics as 'Crime and Punishment' and 'The Brothers Karamazov' - a stand-out and major work from his oeuvre.

Its protagonist is one of literature's most sublime creations, for sure; a character so remarkable, complex and unique that only a genius mind who has such an elevated understanding of the human condition, such as Dostoyevsky's, could've been responsible for its creation. Prince Myshkin is Dostoyevsky's attempt to fulfill the ideal of the "perfect" human being and how this ideal collides with the reality of the modern world and in Prince's Myshkin experiences with the world, we get one of the most intricate mirror images reflecting back our condition. In Myshkin we can see a human being who is one with the world despite being at odds with said world. We go along with him in his experiences and their outcome make for one of the many pleasures of 'The Idiot'.

Another of its pleasures is its narrative simplicity opposed to its thematic complexity. Dostoyevsky thrives in taking opposites and making them clash and this is where the novel finds much of its greatness and tremendous drive. It can be deeply contemplative one moment and then furiously impulsive the next, very simple and light and suddenly extremely dark and complicated, howling in its hilarity and then tragically sad, pristine and clear passages of direct reality give to moments of almost hallucinogenic unconsciousness.

More so than that, Dostoyevsky gives what is probably the greatest indictment against the death penalty and one of the most incisive against the Catholic church, a most heart-wrenching take on mortality, a most intoxicating and fascinating view on the nature of love and compassion, one of the most powerful statements on the problematic of faith in an uncaring world (nearly matching Ivan Karamazov's "Grand Inquisitor" speech) and one of the most eloquent and perfect statements on the essence of belief. This novel is jam-packed with a greatness of ideas and philosophy.

Probably more so than in 'The Brothers Karamazov', in 'The Idiot' Dostoyevsky creates his richest, most deeply human cast of characters and he masters the polyphony of voices to an even greater degree. More than anything, 'The Idiot' is about the way we live and approach the world and its creatures. Dostoyevsky gives us a bunch of people who are deeply flawed as they are diverse and yet contain a very redemptive, humanly recognizable quality; through the Prince's eyes and view, the viewer gets to share what divine love is on earth and with such a view Dostoyevsky's puts us at the crux of the problematic of the human condition. Can we strive, let alone, attain the ideals of Prince Myshkin in a world where selfishness and materialism rule? Dostoyevsky doesn't give us any easy answers and leaves the reader with a paradox until the very ambiguous end. In what is probably the most despairing moment of the entire novel, the character of Ippolit argues in his letter that Christ himself was destroyed by the world and that the way he looked at the moment of his demise could make even the most staunch believers lose their faith. Was Prince Myshkin destroyed by the world at the end of the novel? Was his love too great for him, a man, to bear it? Did he really go insane or he just revealed the insanity of the world? Or is there actually hope for love, hope for life? Dostoyevsky gives the reader a haunting impression of the state of the world and makes the reader ponder about the way they interact with life.

Read 'The Idiot' and be illuminated by Dostoyevsky's understanding of life, challenged by his approach to the world and inspired by Prince Myshkin. This novel is definitely a timeless masterpiece and along with Dostoyevsky's own 'The Brothers Karamazov', one of literature's greatest creations.

This is my first Dostoevsky novel. I would suggest people pick what translation they want to read very carefully based on the type of prose that appeals to them most.

If you are looking for an intriguing and straightforward story, you will be greatly disappointed here. This book is an attempt to bring to light many different philosophical, pyscho/sociological and religious ideas that Dostoevsky wanted to share with the world. He uses a story with no plot or particular intrigue on purpose, to better showcase all of his complex ideas. Conversations between people and not actual actions are used to get his point across. This fact combined with the complexity and multi-layered ideas he is trying to convey make this book a difficult read which requires the reader to pause and think about what they have just read.

Dostoevsky delicately positions all the characters teetering right on the edge of insanity. Leaving the reader wondering who is more insane Anastasia, The Prince, or Mrs. Epanchin herself. He over dramatizes their personalities and quirks, makes fun of their ordinariness, and allows the reader to see a little bit of themselves in every character. As a sideline: I found that the character of Anastasia Philipovna was based on a character from a novel called Lady of the Camilles, thought I would let you all know.

"How is anyone to tell a story which he cannot understand himself?" this is a quote straight out of the book and sums up the book nicely. Dostoevsky, I think admits in this sentence, that he is still trying to figure things out himself, and is telling us that his knowledge is limited to what he knows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some more interesting passages that I really liked straight out of The Idiot:

Let me add to this that in every idea emanating from genius, or even in every serious human idea--born in the human brain--there always remains something--some sediment--which cannot be expressed to others, though one wrote volumes and lectured upon it for five-and-thirty years. There is always a something, a remnant, which will never come out from your brain, but will remain there with you, and you alone, for ever and ever, and you will die, perhaps, without having imparted what may be the very essence of your idea to a single living soul.

"If I had had the power to prevent my own birth I should certainly never have consented to accept existence under such ridiculous conditions.

When you open this letter" (so the first began), "look first at the signature. The signature will tell you all, so that I need explain nothing, nor attempt to justify myself. Were I in any way on a footing with you, you might be offended at my audacity; but who am I, and who are you? We are at such extremes, and I am so far removed from you, that I could not offend you if I wished to do so."

"the impudence of ignorance" -Love this expression!!1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, I found this book to be very deep and to discuss many interesting ideas on many different topics. I had to stop at intervals and think on what I had just read in a seemingly ordinary conversation. This book had my mind reeling at times trying hard to grasp at the ideas. For its intellectual value, this book is a solid five stars.... Dostoevsky is a genius. However, the extreme length of the book, the inability of it to hold your attention, and the over dramatization of boring events (which was his intention to get his point across) made this a difficult and boring book to continue reading. Thus, I felt it necessary to deduct a star. I both loved this book and hated it, alternately.

**** SPOILER ****** Don't Read if you haven't read the book yet.****

Many people may call this a tragedy, I do not believe this to be the case. Prince Mushkin gets what he really wanted- to forget everyone and go back to where he came from. Anastasia is finally at peace. And Agalaya gets a taste of her own medicine by being shown just how naive she herself is. How can anyone call all that a tragedy... sounds like a happy ending to me.

This is another fabulous book by the Russian author Fyodor M. Dostoevsky. Like his other works, Dostoevsky demonstrates a trenchant insight into the personalities of his characters. He is subtle & yet crafty in his character portraits, and the result is the reader being mesmerized by his words.

The present book centers around an epileptic named Myshkin who is supposedly an idiot. [There is no doubt in my mind that many ignorant people thought Dostoevsky to be an idiot due to his dealings with epilepsy]. Myshkin proves himself to be likeable and far more thoughtful than the characters in the book are willing to give him credit.

Myshkin finds himself in the middle of 2 women clamouring for his attention; Aglia & Natasya. Both are femme fatales who are stunningly beautiful, spoiled, capricious, impetuous, shallow, impulsive, sadistic and totally unpredictable. In short, their beauty is offset by their lack of a noble personality.

Authors do not write in a vacuum. There can be no dispute that the traits both ladies are modeled on women that the author knew in his own life. As I was reading this book, it struck me as to just how much some 19th century Russian women bore a resemblance to 21st century American women whom I've known in my time.

Back to the story. Myshkin finds that he has stumbled upon an inheritance, and in addition to women vying for his affection he also has rogues and scoundrels who are trying to swindle him out of his money. Psychologists would have a field-day trying to psycho-analyze all the charcters in this book! One problem I did have was trying to keep up with all of the Russian names. To make matters worse, they sometimes went by more than one name & also had nicknames. Dostoevsky keeps his readers on their toes.

This book is one of the classics of the 19th century. After reading it the reader will admit that the author deserves his place in the pantheon of the greatest novelists who ever lived.

The Idiot is a fascinating portrayal of Russian aristocratic society in full pre-revolutionary decadence. An inherited income or influence in high places is a social necessity since financial ruin is always just around the corner. The highest rated virtue is the ability to make entertaining and clever conversation, hence displaying your status as a member of the educated elite.

Dostoevsky fancies himself as a tale-teller, thus we are always being treated to "stories within the story". A character will relate an incident that is unrelated to the main narrative, largely it seems so that the novelist can display his virtuoso skills. There's also plenty of authorial intrusion where the reader is addressed directly, which breaks the illusion of reality, although this was typical of the era. The technique occasionally gives the book a weirdly post-modern feel.

The novel is nonetheless full of zest. High life and low life mix promiscuously, while fortunes rise and fall. If at times the narrative seems directionless and overly discursive, there's still a lot of fun to be had along the way.

The answer ,of course, is no one. Think of an innocent (the simple Prince Myshkin) sitting in the same compartment as the romantic wastrel, Roghozin on the Petersburg train. Both know some of the same people, and the name of the seductive Nastasya Fillipovna is brought up. Roghozin is obsessed with her and has lost his patrimony over the temptress.

Myshkin, a mystic and an epileptic, makes his way thru various stations of the Cross, while Roghozin( a combination of Peter and Judas) undergoes his own failures and temptations.

Truly this is a multicharactered, philosophical novel with a tragic ending that exposes all the follies and foibles of humankind. In other words, a typical masterpiece from the master of masterpieces. Read Dostoyevsky, or deprive yourself of the greatest novelist ever. Even in translation he comes across as the Shakespeare of prose. Don't be an idiot; read The Idiot.

So many have written excellent, insightful reviews. Let me simply add a few observations. Prince Myshkin, the main character, indeed represents the "Christian" personality prototype, the "child" who is welcomed into the Kingdom of God. He lives and relates on a deeply spiritual level, making him unfit for survival in the highly materialistic world around him.

The prince loves on a different level, too. The only form of love he is aware of, which makes him ridiculous to many, cares for the truest well-being of the subjects of his "affection." His love is non-sexual, though the author goes to great lengths to express the sensuality of the two women with whom his life collides.

(I think his rare, negative impression of one minor character, Vera Lebedeva, stems from the seeds of his sensual nature. Vera is perhaps the purest person he encounters a servant with a servant's heart, and fosters within a budding temporal love to which he is a complete stranger. He casts it off.)

I find the prince and the leading characters highly allegorical. The various characters - each - yearn for what the prince has managed to maintain, his true humanity. Each of them have traded key aspects of their true selves in order to function in a world centered around fame, prosperity and comfort. The reader comes to pity them in some respects more than the main character, though his plight is well expressed.

One idea drawn from the allegory: That materialism is rampant, and that the materialist sacrifices everything truly human to their detriment. The pure Christian soul cannot survive in a world dominated by materialism. "Humanity" cannot survive without sacrificing deep temporal cravings for the primacy of serving, in love, others.

The symbolism behind Holbein's painting? In the setting of the Idiot, steeped in materialism as it is, Christ is dead as a doornail. The world, surrendered to myriad forms of greediness, condemns Christ to permanent death, with no hope of resurrection - no gospel of Christ. The painting's significance, indeed its very placement, represents the hopelessness of the human state as it ruthlessly pursues fulfillment of spiritual emptiness with evanescent sensory pleasure.

[[ASIN:0786193085 The Idiot: Library Edition]audiobook

The MP3 audiobook edition of Dostoyevsky's THE IDIOT makes what could be a turgid, confusing, philosophy-heavy classic into a constant thrill ride, a page turner, and a most important work for our times, which ironically are much as those of 1868 Russia when Dostoyevsky published this book. And what makes the audiobook important is the work of Robert Whitfield who reads every word of the sloppily-translated Constance Garnett edition at a rapid pace with individual voices that give the effect of live radio theater. Dostoyevsky has written of a sinful Russia full of lies, suspicions, evil and secrets, and the characters associated with those elements must have voices to keep the story moving quickly. There is the innocent Prince Myshkin walking through lives of incest, political corruption, prostitution, financial greed, amorality and potential murder. In the novel, there are long, long, long passages and full chapters of conversational debate and pontification, and although important to Dostoyevsky's view of culture, history, the world outside of Russia, religion and belief, the legal system, the class system, and his concerns regarding marriage and the family, a silent reading of these passages can almost cause the action to stop altogether or sag to a slow drip and nearly put the reader to sleep.

Because Whitfield understands the power of inflection, of dramatically making individual words pop out, of reading non-fiction with the intensity of fiction, Dostoyevsky's ideas are clear, emphatic, and applicable rather than lost in a gob of sentences with obscure allusions. This reading is NEVER boring from page to page but rather is full of suspense, light, and even humor. Sure, certain readers could find these on their own by reading silently, but Whitfield makes sure that the reader misses nothing.

Add to this Whitfield's ability to secure individual character voices consistently (not an easy task when reading a 700-page novel. His women's voices are spot on, and his male generals, bankers, charlatans and fools, innocents and even children are simply amazing, with characters ranging from age 15 to age 80. And although he is reading every single word of the Garnett translation of THE IDIOT, in Whitfield's oral interpretation this recording may as well have been a BBC script. If only the original source had been the more recent Pevear and Volokonsky translation, which is far more accurately translated from the Russian.

As far as audiobooks go, this is a dream recording of Dostoyevsky that may never be matched.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" is a compelling mixture of extremely well-drawn characterizations as well as an adept representation of the author's persistently over-arching world view concerning the "perennial questions" of human existence. The novel's main subject, Prince Myshkin, is a sublime and unforgettable character. I certainly wouldn't dispute Myshkin's centrality in "The Idiot" but here Dostoevsky has fleshed out many more distinctive personalities ( Aglaya, Rogozhin, Lebedev, Ippolit ) than ( if memory serves correctly ) in his "Crime and Punishment" ( another masterwork ), which focused pretty much on Raskolnikov's decaying interior world ( an extension of his "underground man" from the famous "Notes" of 1864 ).To speak of the plot would be irresponsible ( I do recommend reading the main text *prior* to reading the scholarly introduction by the translator ) but you can be assured that if you have enjoyed the novels of Joseph Conrad, Nikos Kazantzakis or Thomas Mann, you will appreciate "The Idiot". Also, it seems fairly obvious that a person who has already read several of Dostoevsky's other works will be interested in this particular novel. I admit that, not having read a 19th century novel for quite a while ( some ten years ), the portrayal of a "salon culture" elite and the ( at first glance ) melodramatic exchanges between the characters in their frequent soirees appeared, initially, to be somewhat strained. However, it was instructive to meditate on the fact that this was an era ( c.1868 ) without the benefit (?) of our advanced level technological distractions and so, if one was *not* to participate in such gatherings, one would likely be resigned to a life of intellectual solitude. In such a light, the melodrama of the exchanges seemed less unrealistic. And Dostoevsky was, in fact, throughout his early adulthood a frequenter of all sorts of literary gatherings ( this aspect of his life is superbly revealed in the first of Joseph Frank's monumental multi-volume literary biography ). Undoubtedly Dostoevsky drew upon his memories of such social circles when writing "The Idiot". In any case, whether it was by bearing these historical points in mind or by naturally adjusting to the author's emotional landscape, I did eventually adjust and felt the dialogue to transform into a compellingly realistic vision, at turns exhilarating and sorrowful ( inevitably, the latter mood prevails ). My choice of translation was the Alan Myers/Oxford Press version. I noticed that the Penguin translation was about 60-70 pages shorter. I didn't find that either mentioned "abridged" ( or "unabridged" ) but ended up basing my purchase on the Oxford's ( apparently ) longer version. Also, the Myers/Oxford version has a black and white map of St Petersburg and some helpful notes explaining various obscure references. However, having read the novel only once, I'm obviously not in the position to call this version definitive. I imagine the old Constance Garnett translation has some merit ( she's been in print for some 70 years now and that must say something of her abilities ) and the version produced by the widely acclaimed team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volakhonsky ( having previously translated all the other late novels )is undoubtedly well worth exploring.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's 'The Idiot' is - even with such classics as 'Crime and Punishment' and 'The Brothers Karamazov' - a stand-out and major work from his oeuvre.

Its protagonist is one of literature's most sublime creations, for sure; a character so remarkable, complex and unique that only a genius mind who has such an elevated understanding of the human condition, such as Dostoyevsky's, could've been responsible for its creation. Prince Myshkin is Dostoyevsky's attempt to fulfill the ideal of the "perfect" human being and how this ideal collides with the reality of the modern world and in Prince's Myshkin experiences with the world, we get one of the most intricate mirror images reflecting back our condition. In Myshkin we can see a human being who is one with the world despite being at odds with said world. We go along with him in his experiences and their outcome make for one of the many pleasures of 'The Idiot'.

Another of its pleasures is its narrative simplicity opposed to its thematic complexity. Dostoyevsky thrives in taking opposites and making them clash and this is where the novel finds much of its greatness and tremendous drive. It can be deeply contemplative one moment and then furiously impulsive the next, very simple and light and suddenly extremely dark and complicated, howling in its hilarity and then tragically sad, pristine and clear passages of direct reality give to moments of almost hallucinogenic unconsciousness.

More so than that, Dostoyevsky gives what is probably the greatest indictment against the death penalty and one of the most incisive against the Catholic church, a most heart-wrenching take on mortality, a most intoxicating and fascinating view on the nature of love and compassion, one of the most powerful statements on the problematic of faith in an uncaring world (nearly matching Ivan Karamazov's "Grand Inquisitor" speech) and one of the most eloquent and perfect statements on the essence of belief. This novel is jam-packed with a greatness of ideas and philosophy.

Probably more so than in 'The Brothers Karamazov', in 'The Idiot' Dostoyevsky creates his richest, most deeply human cast of characters and he masters the polyphony of voices to an even greater degree. More than anything, 'The Idiot' is about the way we live and approach the world and its creatures. Dostoyevsky gives us a bunch of people who are deeply flawed as they are diverse and yet contain a very redemptive, humanly recognizable quality; through the Prince's eyes and view, the viewer gets to share what divine love is on earth and with such a view Dostoyevsky's puts us at the crux of the problematic of the human condition. Can we strive, let alone, attain the ideals of Prince Myshkin in a world where selfishness and materialism rule? Dostoyevsky doesn't give us any easy answers and leaves the reader with a paradox until the very ambiguous end. In what is probably the most despairing moment of the entire novel, the character of Ippolit argues in his letter that Christ himself was destroyed by the world and that the way he looked at the moment of his demise could make even the most staunch believers lose their faith. Was Prince Myshkin destroyed by the world at the end of the novel? Was his love too great for him, a man, to bear it? Did he really go insane or he just revealed the insanity of the world? Or is there actually hope for love, hope for life? Dostoyevsky gives the reader a haunting impression of the state of the world and makes the reader ponder about the way they interact with life.

Read 'The Idiot' and be illuminated by Dostoyevsky's understanding of life, challenged by his approach to the world and inspired by Prince Myshkin. This novel is definitely a timeless masterpiece and along with Dostoyevsky's own 'The Brothers Karamazov', one of literature's greatest creations.

It took me three months to read "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky, but more than five years to get around to reading it after it was suggested to me by my friend's mother in Zagreb. She told me that she loved Russian literature and when I asked which novel I should read if I only ever read one, she said, without a doubt, "The Idiot." It was her favorite by far.
My overwhelming impression after finishing it (just minutes ago) is that I feel that I missed a great deal. A Russian friend of mine told me that it is difficult to start Russian literature with "The Idiot" because there is a great deal of contextual understanding required for it. This version, translated by Alan Myers and published by Oxford World's Classics in 1992, was quite readable and included explanatory notes on the text at the end, which helped to illustrate some of the incidents to which Dostoevsky refers, including literary references and a famous and gory murder by a person on which a main character in the novel was modeled.
(I had to pick it up and put it down a lot, which I'm sure detracted from the pace of the plot for me. It would be more enjoyed if one had a great deal of time to focus on it until it was finished, though I did enjoy it a great deal.)
I am told "The Idiot" is very characterisic of a Russian novel, long, with many characters. It also is overcast with existentialism and hopelessness. I will try to summarize the plot of what is really a very psychological novel. (The big moments are emotional, mostly, and one spends a lot of time thinking about what makes various characters, particularly the rival women, do what they do and say what they say.)
Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin is the title character, or the idiot. He has an epilepsy-type disorder, which has caused him to be hospitalized and treated in Switzerland for some years. Returning to St. Petersburg on the train, he is in a car with Parfion Semyonovich Rogozhin and Lukyan Timofeyevich Lebedev, which is where he learns of the beautiful Nastasya Filippovna Barashkova, a kept woman whose beauty is infamous. In order to secure an inheritance, the Prince goes to General Ivan Fedorovich Yepanchin, where he meets Gavrila Ardalionovich Ivolgin, his secretary and the general's daughter, Aglaya Ivanovna Yepanchin, another famous, but chaste and pure (but kind of high maintenance) beauty.
The first part of the book is incredibly suspenseful, taking place within perhaps 24 hours or so (I can't quite remember), but I found the rest of the book a little more meandering, though not irritatingly so. There are exciting incidents and a surprising ending, though it was foreshadowed pretty well throughout; I should have seen it or something like it coming.
The Prince is clearly meant to be a Christ-like figure. My version of the paperback has a detail of Christ's face from Christ in the Tomb by Hans Holbein on the cover. The Prince is always kind and good, he loves without the strictures of the upper-middle-class society that he sees about him, and even when he's made fun of, tricked, attacked and maligned, he continues to love and care for the social group in which he has found himself.
The introductory notes state, "Yet if Myshkin is a Christ he is a flawed one, and his mission is doomed to failure. His Christian meekness and compassion ... have disruptive ... consequences when practised in the 'real' world of nineteenth-century Russia. ...
[I]n Russia the same qualities [innocence and simplicity] breed mistrust, embarassment, and hatred. ... In Russia Myshkin discovers, for the first time in his life, the gulf between ideals and reality and the impossibility of achieving paradise on earth."
Recently, I read a book called "If You Want to Write" by Brenda Euland, published in the 1930s. She praised the Russian writers because she said they imagined their worlds and characters so clearly and completely that they merely had to write down what they saw and describe it. Their texts did not seem made up, or stilted. I would agree with her. From the first sentence of The Idiot, I could clearly see the world in which Prince Myshkin lived.
I also did try to prepare for Dostoevsky himself by reading J.M. Coetzee's fictional work about the return of Dostoevsky to St. Petersburg from Germany when his teen-age stepson died, The Master of Petersburg. I think it was a good preparation for the dark, existential pain of this novel.

It would be unwise to discuss the book or the author itself here; too much has been said of Dostoevsky and his unkanny ability to deliver every facet of human psyches, and even all his works. For all you have to do is read a couple of the reviews here, or do a quick web search. Take for example the simple quip: You have taken some accidental case and twisted it into a universal law, which is unjust, as a point of illustrating Dostoevsky's complex bereavement of western society--a brilliant critic.

Alas, what we can discuss is the translation, which I find this edition to be the best. However, I rated this 4 stars because my friend has an edition in Russian, and the minor ambiguous translations (much like things you'd find in Plato or Aristotle: words that we simply don't have in English) for some of the idioms seem to be lacking. Again however, that is the nature of the beast, any translated work is bound to come across this issue.

This is one of the more famous of Dostoyevsky's novels, and quite rightly so as it has his very-unique blend of psychology, philosophy and an unrelenting view of the bleakest recesses of the soul.

I read the novel in the original Russian, so this isn't a review of any particular translation but the work itself.

In brief, the book centres around a Prince who has returned to Russia after being treated for mental illness in Switzerland since his childhood (hence the idiot). He quickly becomes involved within the upper-middle eschellons of St Petersburgian society, as people become fascinated by his direct honesty, simplicity and compassion. He becomes emotionally involved with a Fallen Woman, and this develops into a love triangle with another woman, ultimately ending in --- you guessed it! - tragedy. The Idiot is portrayed as the symbol of a child-like innocence: he genuinely wants everyone to live in harmony and love. However, the falseness, politics and backstabbing of the world of Russian middle-nobility will have none of that.

The plot is quite complicated - but not in terms of twists. The story is quite simple in terms of what happened, however much of it is told inside-out, focusing on the internal world of the characters. So, if you feel like you've missed something - a reason for a character's comment, an event etc, chances are, this will be revealed later on.

Dostoyevsky dwells on the extreme minute aspects of the emotional lives of his charactes. This is the richest aspect of the novel - and these emotions possess all the contradiction and chaos that real people have. There are no total heroes in the book - but I found a part of myself identifying with the Prince, as the grown child who just doesn't want to accept the "adult" behaviour of interpersonal relationships. I think it's expected in reading the book that some characters will be loathed, some found amusing and admired, some arousing interest - but not loved. This is because the world portrayed within the book is very inaccessible. It's hard to identify with anyone in terms of more than the generality of emotion - not just because the setting is remote, but because the characters experience thoughts and ideas that are so different to what most people would. I think this inaccessability was deliberate - as we feel not-quite-at-home in the world of the book, so it highlights how the Prince is not quite at home there - and that's where the sublime feeling is derived from.

On a side note, be prepared for the difficulty of keeping track of names, as people are called by their surnames on certain occasions and the rest is first name and father's name. With heaps of characters and many Russian names, it all becomes a mess. But with some concentration (perhaps making a cast of characters?) that can be overcome and a great read will be had.

A great book that will interact with your emotional world - if you don't mind heavy reading.

"The Idiot" is the story of Prince Myshkin, a simple-minded, almost Christ-like figure given to seizures.

It's not Dostoyevsky's best novel, and its ending is somewhat abrupt and disappointing, but it's probably better than ninety percent of all the other novels written by any author since. It's brilliant, and it contains some of Dostoyevsky's finest writing. A passage in which the book's protagonist walks into a room and then into a girl's eyes springs immediately to mind, and has stayed with me ever since I first read this book years ago.

And, unlike Dostoyevksy's more widely read works, in this book, Dostoyevsky often takes the opportunity to digress from the novel's story and tell his personal opinions on what he's writing about, whether the subject be an event in the story or a particular theme the author feels strongly about. These digressions present a great opportunity for the reader to really get to know this amazing writer.

But the story and the characters are reasons enough to give this book a go, preferably after first reading "The Brothers Karamazov," "Crime and Punishment," or some of Dostoyevky's shorter works.

It's a great book, very rewarding, and well worth your time.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin is one of the most pure, childlike, beautiful, yet naïve figures in christian literature. He is beautiful simply because he is ridiculous at the same time, despite his always good intentions. In almost every respect, he is very similar to the still famous Don Quixote. The reader can't help feeling compassion for Servantes' hero's unawareness of his own worth and his ridiculousness at the same time. Dostoyevsky's hero arouses the reader's sympathy for pretty much the same reasons. He certainly is not the main protagonist of this novel, in the sense that being almost an onlooker, he's an understanding listener, allows himself to be drawn to a complex underground intrigue he stepped right into, and that unwillingly, he attracts around him all the characters of this book and lends his ear to their confessions and revelations. He commiserates with those who try to lie to him, cheat him, mock him, and throughout the narrative he remains an outsider, an "idiot" in the classic meaning of the word. And in this respect the reader may find him somewhat irritating. Sometimes. At least I do.

Dostoyevsky dispatches Myshkin back to Russia as a redeemer, and to me, precisely this messianic content of this novel is in glaring contradiction to the content of all his other major novels. In him, one can see how Russia is reflected. The prince is not a bearer of a philosophy of any kind whatsoever. His function is not to act in any way, or to alter the course of the action by the continuity of his deeds. His function is simply to disseminate the aura of a new state of being, and let happen what may happen.

"The idiot" is Dostoyevsky's book of salvation, and Prince Myshkin, just like Christ, tried to save without overcoming the implacability of destiny. There is no other character in russian literature quite like him. He is the personification of the highest potentialities of the russian spirit. And his motherland, whom he wants to save, is in total disarray at the time of his return. To save through compassion, the highest form of christian love: that's what he wants to achieve. And as soon as he arrives, he realizes the hopelessness of his mission. He can not simply save through compassion alone. This grim fatalism begins on the very first page of the novel, when the prince, on his way back home, meets Rogozhin in the train. And they are both here together at the beginning, just as they will be at the very end of the book. Myshkin hovers above the fatal pursuit of Nastassya Filippovna by Rogozhin like an angel wringing his hands over the Crucifixion. In the end, he embracing Rogozhin, the murderer by the bedside of Nastassya's lifeless body transforms the killing into a ritual sacrifice.

A lot of long passages and even whole pages throughout this novel seem to have been written by a restless, uneasy, sometimes even feverish mind. I learned that Dostoyevsky was epileptic only immediately after having finished this novel. To be honest, I wasn't surprised that much.

"The idiot", like all the books the great russian writer has ever written, is certainly not an easy read at all. Sometimes, it requires rereading certain passages again and again. "Crime and punishment" has always been my personal favorite Dostoyevsky novel. Yet, I think "The idiot" is an extremely well-written novel in which we see ourselves, and the world the book is about happens to be ours too.

The most remarkable achievement of this almost Tolstoyian saga of the 19th century Russian aristocrats is that few readers will be able to truly point where or with who their sympathies and hatreds really lie by the time they reach the climax.

As such, all the characters are normal human beings with peculiarities not so uncommon and interactions - while regal - fairly mundane in most parts. Dostoyevsky still keeps flinging the readers on an emotional roller-coaster by drawing one type of emotions, deceiving quickly to some other end and then doing the same psychological/emotional fakes and double fakes most unexpectedly multiple times with a host of characters.

Myshkin - a good-hearted, Jesus like simpleton or a bumbler who invariably breaks more than just vases as he extends his reach unintentionally? Filipovna - a repenting Magdalen trying to save the beloved from a life of misery or a scheming, jealous, impetuous woman with a commitment phobia? The same janus-faced, diametrically opposite feelings-evoking personalities are shown highly subtly in many others like Aglaya, Rogozhin, Madame Yepanchin, Hippolite, Lebedev, General Ivolgin, Ganya and perhaps a few more.

Unlike Dostoyevsky's other books and more like in Tolstoy's novels, it takes a while to become clear on various people's relationships with each other. So many characters with difficult names for the non-Russians hurt senses in the first half. But, it is most absolutely worth sticking to the book, even with the aid of multiple-reading or reading of summaries elsewhere for some highly emotional, thought-provoking developments.

As background information, I have read most of Dostoevsky's novels including some of his early works and all of his most popular 6 or 7 novels. Among those, I have read some from Oxford Classics and some Vintage translations by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. It took me about a week to read the 575 pages in this present Wordsworth Classic reviewed here.

I bought and read the Wordsworth Classics version of this Dostoevsky novel The Idiot. This is a minimalist book with little more than the text. For example, Wordsworth does not even give the names of the translators and the introduction to Dostoevsky and the novel is very brief, just three pages long, and it is oriented more towards a biography of the writer than giving the reader much analysis of the story and the themes. Having said that, the translation appears to be smooth and it is highly readable, and it is good value for the money. My initial impression was that the font was small, but it seems to have the same number of pages as other printers of the same novel. In any case, there is lots of analysis on the web which mitigates the need to pay more to buy analysis and the text. So, I would recommend this text only version.

This is one of Dostoevsky's better novels. It has a clear story and it has strong characters led by Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin the protagonist: he is "the idiot." He returns to Russia after spending some years in a hospital or clinic in Switzerland. The story flows smoothly interrupted by only one diversion about a man who is just mildly related to the main thrust of the story: Ippolit. Some consider this part to be brilliant. I thought that it was interesting but did not add that much to the overall story. Most will find the novel to be near perfect but perhaps a bit long.

The book is an opportunity for Dostoevsky to present a morally perfect but physically flawed Christian character, and then to show how the character interacts with an imperfect Russian society. That is the main theme. We follow the story of six odd but interesting primary characters and about twenty secondary characters who represent a cross-section of Russian society.

This is one of his best novels and some might consider it to be a masterpiece and that the protagonist Prince Myshkin is an important literary character. As a novel it is not as good as The Brothers Karamazov which is Dostoevsky's best. It is entertaining and it has a good story, although not what one describe as a compelling read, although the second half is better in that regard. Dostoevsky gives many comments on morality and the Christian faith. It is a story of good versus evil, but with the edges or boundaries slightly blurred.

There is a moderate level of drama and uncertainty which keeps the reader's interest throughout. This is an excellent buy and a good value from Wordsworth Classics.

Another reviewer states that The Idiot should not be a first foray into Dostoevsky's works....which I disagree with....

Having first read 'Crime and Punishment' and the dark complexity of a good man driven to tortured madness by having committed an unspeakable act, no matter how well-intentioned it might be...I found this novel lacking in comparison....and might suggest this as a starting point, in order to gain an insight into the writing style and illumination of theme one needs to appreciate such a complex author...

Prince Myshkin, the 'good man' protagonist of this novel, is purported by other reviewers to be either a representation of Christ; or a representation of the author himself, a man 'flawed' by his alcoholism and gambling addiction, illustrated as an affliction of epilepsy in the character of Myshkin....a 'defect' which makes him less than desirable to those around him...

However, Myshkin's wealth brings him admiration, frienship, even love; in the persons of some unscrupulous and amoral characters who seek him out for their own personal agendas, regardless of his 'idiocy' while Dostoevksy plays out their affect on this 'pure' man as they attempt to corrupt him as well. The characters are vain, ill-tempered gold-diggers and social climbers, and Myshkin's is tasked with remaining 'pure' in the face of such influence on him.

The novel is long, yes, and takes some attention in order to wade through the myriad characters and situations; and a bit of adeptness at 'reading between the lines' in order to recognize the theme that the author was exploring. However, though I do find it lack-lustre in comparison to C&P, it is a worthwhile read and deserves its place in the annals of classic literature.

I won't go into great detail about the book since you can read the summary. I will only provide this: I rate "The Idiot" four stars only, ONLY, because I compare it to other works by Dostoevsky. I classify his four-star work as being: "Crime and Punishment", "The Idiot" and "House of the Dead". "The Brothers Karamazov" being his 5-star work. IMO.

That being said, I read this book last summer and enjoyed it tremendously. I read Dostoevsky very, very slowly on purpose. I enjoy each sentence, each paragraph and each page like a delicious Scotch. I don't want to finish his books because the characters are so rich. To me, his only competition is Turgenev, and (the greatest work I've yet to read) Joyce's "Ulysses".

I try and imagine someone sculping such beautiful sentences without the use of a word processor to pour over them, arrange and rearrange them. If you're just getting into Dostoevsky , this is a good a place as any to start.

Also, stick to the translations by Pevear and Volokhonsky. Their language is much better than some of the older Penguin versions you're going to find.

I plan on rereading this book again soon.

cheers!

For a three-CD long condensed version of a Dostoevsky classic, this is great! I had actually read the first 300 pages of the book, with another 300 to go, when I pooped out and decided to finish it up by listening to the CD instead. The first 1 and 1/2 CD's covered material that I had already read but I felt like I was getting everything Dostoevsky offered just by listening to the CD. The voicing is also first rate. The reason to read the book is that Dostoevsky is great when it comes to writing about intensely emiotional issues, but the voicing somewhat makes up for this shortfall. Not perfect, though I wouldn't have finished the story if it weren't for this audiobook.

I had recently read Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, and Notes from Underground, in addition to several criticism books on Dostoevsky, so I do have some familiarity with Dostoevsky. Frankly, the other books were better, though it is always worth the wait to get to those intense sections where ever they are. Any suggestions for the next book??

I read "Crime and Punishment" three different times in three different translations. I was afraid to start this book because I knew I would like it so much. This book illustrate greatness and abasement of humanity and author's deep understanding and love toward both extremes. The precise recant of author's observation on people and life he encountered pulled me right into his story. Through his stories, I was enlightened that regardless of nation, era, culture, and advancement in technology or knowledge, there is something that author, the characters, and I share together. I believe that is the sign of masterpiece. As for the translation, I thought the warmth and anxiety of the Russian philosopher and perfectionist's voice was clearly heard through it and I give regard to the work.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot is a difficulty book for the ordinary person, not versed in Russian history or culture, to appreciate. That is so for several reasons. Much like Eliot's Middlemarch, Dostoevsky is interested in examining Russian culture at a particular time in history, namely Russia in the years after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. For Dostoevsky this period in Russian history was one of declining values where wealth, power and sexual conquest replaced the positive values of the Christian faith. Thus the book is driven more by ideas than plot. At times it seems there is no plot; the characters meet, often in drunken revelry, and talk and talk and talk--heatedly and at odds with each other. Zany things happen and the reader wonders just what is the point of all this seeming tomfoolery.

Dostoevsky's point may be summed up in the scene starting on page 419 in which Lebedyev, a disreputable character in the book who claims to have a deep knowledge of religious history, relates an alleged story from the 12 century of a man who, because of the famines of that time, ate people, specifically, "sixty monks and a few infant laymen, a matter of six, but no more." Moreover, Lebedyev alleges, "It is perfectly comprehensible and natural." The others in the group respond in shock and disbelief. One claims that the reason for eating ecclesiastics instead of laymen is that the former were fat from the easy life they led as compared to the harsh realities faced by ordinary people. In the end Lebedeyev states, the man gave himself up to the clergy and the authorities out of a sense of guilt, despite the knowledge that he would be subjected to horrendous tortures. He adds that morality in those times was better than the present in which "there is more wealth, but less strength. There is no uniting idea; everything has grown softer, everything is limp, and everyone is limp!" Indeed, Dostoevsky fills the book with "limp" characters--flawed in many respects and a sense of hopelessness pervades their actions.

The novel begins with the protagonist, Prince Lyov Nikolayevitch Myshkin, a young man plagued by illness, returning to Russia (Petersburg) after spending some years in Switzerland. Myshkin is referred to as an "idiot," but a better term might be "innocent and naïve." At this point he is poor with literally only the clothes on his back and a small bundle. Having no acquaintances in Russia he goes to the home of a woman he may be related to and her family. The Epanchins include the father, a retired general who is somewhat of a reprobate, the mother, an excitable, emotional strong willed woman, and their three marriageable daughters. A second family, the Ivolgins, is also featured in the novel, as well as a small host of other characters, particularly a mysterious woman, Nastasya Filippovna. The Prince (as he is called) quickly ingratiates himself with these characters although their relationship swings greatly over time.

The book is divided into four parts. The first is, in my view, the most interesting as the idealistic Prince meets the various characters who respond in zany and often humorous fashion. But at the end of this part the Prince inherits a large sum of money and his relations with the characters changes. He develops an emotional attachment to Nastasya Filippovna and even proposes to marry her. He claims not to love her, but rather to pity her. The Prince also comes to love the youngest of the Epanchin daughters, Aglaia, a beautiful but haughty girl. But the remainder of the book degenerates into wild emotional discussions among clearly flawed and troubled characters who need a protagonist more like Nurse Ratched from Ken Kesey's book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, than the ineffectual Prince Myshkin, who in the end turns out to be as troubled as the other characters, if not more so. My own judgment is that the writing reflects Dostoevsky's own troubled mind and body. One or two of these highly charged discussions would have made Dostoevsky's point about the degeneration of Russian society at that time, but the book becomes tedious when they are extended over almost 700 pages.

I give the book three stars because it has both positive and negative qualities. People interested in Russia may find it enlightening, others will be bored. Those not versed in Russian names may also find it difficult to follow who is saying or doing what. Thus it would be a good idea for such people to learn how Russians refer to each other before tackling the book.

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.

THE IDIOT is an important novel for understanding Fyodor Dostoevsky and his complex approach to life, but for me it was not an enjoyable novel to read. After a promising beginning, it became a moderate ordeal. I cannot recommend it to anyone other than those keenly interested in Dostoevsky the person.

More so than with any of Dostoevsky's other novels (I have now read all of the major ones), THE IDIOT is a novel of ideas. Perhaps it seems that way because the plot is relatively thin and most of the characters relatively unsatisfactory (they are more stand-ins for types than they are fully and consistently individuated people), and therefore the ideas are pretty much all the reader has to work with. But Dostoevsky packs far too many ideas into the novel, so that it ends up diffuse and untidy. And confusing. The clearest message I gleaned from the novel is the one I have quoted as the title for this review.

Dostoevsky wrote to a friend that the main idea of the novel was "to portray a positively beautiful man". In history, the only positively beautiful figure (for Dostoevsky) was Christ and in literature the most complete such figure was Don Quixote. Prince Myshkin, the central figure (and the idiot) of the novel, exhibits aspects of both Christ and Don Quixote. At the beginning of the THE IDIOT Myshkin is a secular saint - penniless, utterly guileless, and selfless - and it is enchanting to see him gradually win over the many vacuous, conceited, and materialistic members of the Russian upper-middle class he encounters. But as the novel progresses, the egotism and materialism of the world end up soiling and then crushing Myshkin. The most difficult problem he has to deal with is being entrapped by two loves - for the beautiful but despoiled Nastasya and the equally beautiful but girlish and virginal Aglaya. Myshkin's "love" is of a different sort altogether from conventional (and selfish) human love, so it goes unrequited. Ultimately, no one truly understands Myshkin (he is an idiot and a "holy fool") and he fails in his quest to live a pure, Christ-like life in this world.

There are numerous autobiographical aspects to the novel. For example, Myshkin suffers from epileptic fits, as did Dostoevsky. Early in the novel, Dostoevsky, through Myshkin, tells the story of the mock execution he experienced as a young man and how that concentrated a desire to live every minute of his life to the fullest. Looming over the novel is Hans Holbein's painting of the dead Christ just taken down from the Cross, a painting with which Dostoevsky was transfixed when he saw it in Basel, Switzerland. (For Dostoevsky the painting raised the question, which he passes along in the novel, "that if death is so terrible and the laws of nature are so powerful, how can they be overcome?") The vying of the two women Nastasya and Aglaya for the affections of Myshkin even mirrors, at least imperfectly, the vying for Dostoevsky's affections between his former mistress and his second wife.

If the theme of the novel were more focused on whether and how a true Christian can live in this sinful and selfish world, I might respond more favorably to it. But Dostoevsky tackles numerous other issues as well - for example, money-grubbing, liberalism, Roman Catholicism, atheism, and the Young Nihilists. He also uses the novel to launch an extended, oft-satirical, attack on the Russian upper-middle class. For me, there simply is too much going on. (And the novel is wordy, even by the standards of the 19th-Century novel.)

To help offset my generally negative and perhaps idiosyncratic response to the novel, I will end by quoting Joseph Frank, from his definitive biography of Dostoevsky: "But though THE IDIOT is the most uneven of Dostoevsky's four best novels, it is the one in which his personal vision of life, in all its tragic complexity, is expressed with the greatest intimacy, with the most poignancy, and with a lyrical pathos that touches on sublimity."

There certainly will never be another book like The Idiot. As every high school student knows, the central maxim of creative writing is, "Show; don't tell." Henry James, who criticized the novels of Dostoyevsky as big, lumbering dinosaurs, epitomized this method of literary exegesis. In The Idiot, Dostoyevsky wrote nearly 700 pages of "telling" and almost no "showing" to speak of. The book doesn't really have a plot: though linear, there is little cohesion; in addition, Dostoyevsky takes frequent times outs from telling his story to expound on such philosophical issues as capital punishment, morality, humility, materialism, and the order of chaos. Indeed, the previous subject, or the lack there of, is really the theme and the focus of the book. In reading The Idiot, it becomes quite clear why Christ was crucified. Dostoyevsky portrays the Russia of his time as a mad, chaotic world characterized by an obsession with decadent materialism. In such a swirling mass of "isms", one struggles to find a rational and coherent foothold; morality and virtue have no place. The Christian ideal -- which now seems to have disappeared from the world, if, indeed, it ever actually existed -- of humility, submission, deference, tolerance, and turning the other cheek, as personified in Prince Myshkin, the novel's title character and protagonist, also has no place. Dostoyevsky saw the Christ-like figure of Myshkin as the only hope that Russian culture and society had: he was Dostoyevsky's redemptive figure. Unfortunately, as Dostoyevsky clearly and vividly portrays in this dark and bleak novel, such a person would most likely never be able to integrate him or herself into a culture as far gone into decadence and negative modes of thinking -- atheism, nihilism, etc. -- as his Russia was. Does this sound familiar, or does it not? The book and it multiple messages are clearly still very relevant today. One literary scholar quite accurately called this Dostoyevsky's most contemporary novel. One senses that it is even more applicable to today's (post-Communist and once again being invaded by capitalism and Western materialism) Russia than to the Russia of Dostoyevsky's own time. The book is not an especially exciting read: there is a multitude of dialogue and very few things (with the exceptions of Nastashya's two big incidents) which can be called "exciting" take place. The novel, as mentioned before, is also very fragmented: it is seemingly not structured at all, and events happen apparently at random and with no connection to each other. This, of course, relates back to the chaos of order -- or, in relation to the novel itself, the order of chaos. The discontinuity of the novel reflects and comments upon the discontinuity of society and the world itself. This is precisely why we still read Dostoyevsky today, and why we should always read him: the anomie of Dostoyevsky is the eternal anomie of mankind.

A curiously hard to put down book about a society divided and trapped by its own definitions of itself.

Daughters trapped in a loving home, which nevertheless makes them into neurotic victims within their parents' boundaries of obsessive control in fear of a cruel society that is so quick to demonize a girl or woman who would dare challenge the social mores.

The wide array of mundane personalities, calculating opportunists and manipulators, men and women, looking to latch onto a figure that may become a vehicle for their own peculiar social ambitions.

The desperately lonely world of the older members of society, their maddening mirage of a life spent on chasing the illusory achievements that ultimately no one cares about. Can anyone wonder that so many sought then, as they do now, an escape in booze and (today) drugs?

And then there's the young, naive hero clueless to the world of adults into which he is thrown having had spent most of his life away from the maddening crowd of adult intrigues and hypocritical customs and conventions, who never learned the "art" of lies, connivance and underhanded game-playing with the lives of others.

Much of the world described in the compelling novel is mostly long gone. Girls and women need no longer fear their sexuality. A smart and enterprising person need no longer depend on powerful and privileged members of society to realize his/her own ambitions. There remains, however, to this day the need to hide one's true persona. Very likely even more today than 150 years ago vis a vis the omnipresent fishbowl of social websites and gradually disappearing respect for one's privacy.

Despite are own self-assurances, we are still trapped by social mores invented by and for our own time. Today's Idiot is still a person who cannot see the point in duplicitous behaviour.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, I suppose.

This book is one of Dostoyevsky's best, and in my opinion is very accurate in it's depiction of society's view of honesty and decency. Generally speaking honesty and kindness have a tendancy to arose suspicions and contempt amongst the average people you may be so unfortunate to encounter. In a collective society of ignorance and weakness decency is a concept that will encourage a mob like vengeance. Jose Rizal said it quite plainly "The world hates an honest man.", and the biggest social block our prince here has is his inability or unwillingness to be cruel or petty. He is provided with several opportunities to hurt those who try to hurt him, but he does not act upon any of them in fact he often seems saddened by the potential for suffering in his peers.
Tragically we have always been subject to an attitude that kindness is a form of weakness and this has slowed the progress of our advancement since the beginning of time.

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 Russia? Dostoevsky offers 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.
Holy 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
1. 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).
a. The Prince gives his eschatology (568ff).
b. 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.

I came to Dostoevsky through the back door, so to speak. In about 1958 or 1959, a small art theater in Dallas, Texas was showing a movie of THE IDIOT that had been filmed in Russia in 1958, under the direction of Ivan Pyriev, a leading Russian director. How this movie ever got from Russia to Dallas or where it disappeared to after I saw it, I don't know. I do know that it is impossible to find.
All this is by way of introduction. This stark, black and white film so fascinated me that I had to read the book. THE IDIOT had such an impact on me that I felt compelled to search out and read everything I could find by and about Dostoevsky. His body of work then led me to many of the other great Russian writers; Tolstoy, Turgenev, Gogol, and, of course, the father of them all, Aleksandr Pushkin. I even discovered some of the "lesser" Russian writers such as Goncharev. In my case, at least, one good book led to years of wonderful reading.
THE IDIOT, the book that started it all for me, stands on its own as a wonderful piece of literature. It can be read by itself, or as a part of the body of Dostoevsky's work, or within the framework of great Russian literature. Attempting to determine which book or which of these authors is better is an exercise in futility and, if you'll pardon me, of sophistry. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A good book is a good book is a good book."
Dostoevsky did say that THE IDIOT was his favorite of his books. Perhaps that was because of certain biographical aspects of the book. Dostoevsky, like Myshkin, was an epileptic. Myshkin returns to St. Petersburg and its callous society after years of absence during which he underwent medical treatment for his "idiocy." Dostoevsky, in real life, returned to St. Petersburg after a long absence that consisted of his incarceration in Siberia for four years followed by an additional four years of enforced army duty. These are not the only biographical aspects of THE IDIOT. I would not want to be misunderstood, however. Dostoevsky incorporated aspects of his own life into the book but it is not, in any way, a work of fictionalized autobiography.
Prince Myshkin, the "idiot" of the title, is as near to being a saint as is possible for a flesh and blood human being. His saintliness is accompanied by naivete. He is naive to such a degree that he cannot anticipate the consequences of his actions. His attempts to do good often reap havoc on those about whom he cares. Because he loves one woman and pities another, he inadvertantly ends up being a destructive force in both their lives. In trying to redeem one, who is essentially unredeemable, he indirectly causes her to be murdered. From the standpoint of pure innocence a case could be made that Myshkin was the model for Jerzy Kosinski's Chauncey Gardener.
Dostoevsky is certainly a master of the psychological novel, and THE IDIOT is a novel that delves into the soul of a man. He investigates the impact that a corrupt society has on the soul of an incorruptable man and, conversely, the impact of goodness and spirituality on a corrupt society which is unwilling to be swayed. I wish that I could say that society was improved for having been exposed to Myshkin, but it wasn't changed any more than the wealthy of Rome were changed by their exposure to the early Christian martyrs.
THE IDIOT is a book that is well worth reading. It is not necessary to "ease into it" by reading another of his novels first as has been suggested elsewhere on these pages. What is necessary is to bring a thoughtful mind along with you when you sit down to what should be one of the greater reading experiences that may come your way.

I admit it upfront- Fyodor Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' was a difficult read.

Immediately following this I would like to add that it is not the author's fault that this is the case. Nor is it the translators place to be blamed (Constance Garnett does a wonderful job, as always- her translations from Russian are highly recommended; note: this review refers to Bantams first printing of this novel). I think that if one was to assess where to place the blame for the level of difficulty of this masterpiece (and it is indeed to be justifiably found in that category), one would be hard-pressed to find a good source.

The difficulty in reading a book like 'The Idiot' and then trying to locate the problems in it are that the so-called 'problems' are really not problems at all; the things that I would complain about in Dostoevsky's novel are missing entirely in other works, leaving me to almost feel ashamed to even point out that they exist here.

What I'm getting at is this...'The Idiot' is TOO chock-full of ideas for its own good. Every time you turn the page there is another idea being tossed at you, usually in the form of a diatribe, a dissertation, an 'explanation', a monologue, or a rant and rave between characters. There is the invalid Ippolit's explanation of his worldview and how he despises all those around him who are so full of life; I could go on and on about the difficulties raised by this single character, about the contradictions expressed in his realization and simultaneous denial of his mortality and how it has raised in him a profound loneliness and desire to hate all those around him- he reaches out, then lashes out. Or perhaps I could talk about Myshkin's rant towards the end of the novel, a monologue that discusses at length how the Russian aristocracy could survive and be relevant in a new age, a rant that is timeless in its appeal to those who sit in power and misuse it, not even realizing that they have passed their prime and are of no use to society any longer.

But I'm going to forgo those details (and there are tons more) and instead focus on why you should read this novel and why it should be considered a classic. Its very simple- amongst all the deluge of ideas that the author is tossing at you lay two timeless concepts.

One of those ideas is that a good man cannot exist in society without being broken- this is a running theme throughout the book, one that personifies itself in the shy and irrevocably kind-hearted Prince Myshkin (our novels 'Idiot'). Make no mistake that Myshkin's life is a rough parallel to Jesus Christ's and that the simple earnestness and naive trustfulness offered to others by the character, along with his undoubted willingness to forgive the mistakes and betrayals made by those around him (as is too continually relied upon by other characters in the work), is a direct reflection of what the author must have considered Christian values. The author, in presenting this to the audience, is condemning all of mankind as being continuously unable to accept those who can do the most good in their midst. He successfully paints his `beautiful person' (which is the intent of the novel, according to the back) and then brings him to ruin in a society that is fraught with the perils of egoism.

Also in this tangle comes the other idea (the one which must have caused people to encourage Dostoevsky to others on the basis of being a 'psychologist')- it is that people will always do that which is most to their ruin because they are afraid of happiness. Nastasya Filippovna is the embodiment of this, tossing aside (in one of the most unforgettable scenes in all of literature) the one chance she has at the life she has always wanted because she is unable to accept that it could really be happening to her. But this is not the only case that the author presents this idea to us- it can also be found in the continued 'loving ridicules' of the youngest Epanchin daughter, in the continued betrayals of Lebedyev, in the rejection by the aristocrats of Myshkin's ideas, ideas that would save them and bring them renown, and it can be found in even the smallest of characters in the story...in Kolya (who ignores his family problems so as to not have to deal with them), in general Ivolgin (who continues to want the one thing that would harm him most of all), in Rogozhin (a force of nature who wishes for something only so that he can destroy it)...the list goes on and on...

The problem in trying to write this review for the store is that there is too much ground to cover in a short snippet; I can simply try to toss out the gist of what I read, the grandeur or the novel, the unimaginable scope...and hope that some of what I experienced has an impact on you, the potential reader, enough to encourage you to want to go out and read it yourself.

Bottom line: learn the definition of `nihilist' from Turgenov, then read this, an authors scathing response to that thought-process.

-LP

Dostoevsky, that great tortured and feverish soul, wrote this novel after the onslaught of the Nihilists in Russian arts and letters. He felt he was waging a war against the crude and unfeeling Western materialism of the day; he was battling what he saw as a holy war. While authors like Turgenev and Tolstoy regarded the expanding West with (fairly) open arms, Dostoevsky feared it would cause a religious crisis, where faith in Christ was extinguished and ignorance, vanity, and greed would overcome.
This is a towering, exciting novel--perhaps not as great as "Crime & Punishment" or "Brothers Karamazov"--it contains some of his most penetrating insights into religious faith, human compassion, despair, and insanity. Prince Myshkin is of course one of literature's great characters, a Christ-like young man caught up in the treachery of the aristocratic lives of the Yepanchins. The other two main characters, Rogozhin and Nastasya Filippovna, along with Myshkin, form a powerful triangle that, despite their being "off-stage" for much of the novel, drive this novel to its tragic, unavoidable climax.
I do not, however, recommend this book to first time Dostoevsky readers; that should be "Notes from Underground" or "Crime and Punishment." The ideas Dostoevsky explores here need some context and understanding; they may leave the inexperienced reader a bit confused. At least that was my experience! After understanding him and his concerns, this novel cracked wide open. It is a darkly spiritual work, as are all of his; it is also quite disturbing. When young Ippolit describes the Hans Holbein painting "Christ in the Tomb" that adorns the cover of the Oxford edition, we see into the darkest reaches of despair and hopelessness. Indeed, the painting is a Christ that is unresurrected, one that is rotting flesh and cannot, in Dostoevsky's scenario, save humankind. This thought terrifies Rogozhin, Myshkin... and Dostoevsky himself.
What a stunning achievement this work is. I am in awe of it. Simply: Read it.

This is the novel where Dostoevsky's ability as an artist to create fascinating characters reach it's pinnacle. How can you read this novel and not love the Prince Myshkin, with his childlike innocence juxtaposed against his complete mastery into the inner psychologies of people, or not fall in love with Aglaia, the sensitive and mercurial soul that protects herself behind a wall of cynicism and pride? Dostoevsky somehow casts his spell, whereby the the reader is lead into another world populated with seemingly fantastic and insane characters, who nevertheless seem absolutely real. His uncanny insights into the depths of psychology are incredibly trenchant and almost super-human. Nietschze said of Dostoevsky that he is the only psychologist whom he ever learned anything from. So absolutely true! Who else wrote with such insight about people with self destructive tendencies(Natashya), subconscious desires, and the irrational contradictions of the conscious and subconscious. If you read this novel and do not come away with new insight and a better understanding of the psychological workings of others around you, either you are Freud come back from the dead or incredibly dense!

First, let me respond to another review on the B&N edition. It seems that many long works of the 19th century are "guilty" of the same thing--saying a lot more than necessary to make the point. Yes, The Idiot, like Les Miserable, like War and Peace, could have been reduced to 200 to 300 pages, even less, but that wasn't the style of the time. My recommendation in approaching these works, as with much we ever do, is to take the Zen approach: enjoy the process of life presented in the book without much attention to the goal. Once one reaches the goal, in the case finishing the book, the person is at once unfulfilled again, needing something else to read and intrigue the mind. So enjoy the present moment in the book, any book.

That being said, The Idiot is rather curious to me on one point. I don't know if this is part of Russian style, but why did Dostoevsky find it necessary, in virtually every case, to use full names, even when one person is addressing a close friend or family member. Also, why does virtually every person have 2 names, names which aren't even similar to each other? I highly recommend, if you want to keep the characers straight, that you keep a list in your book as characters show up as to what their dual names are. I mean, you will find one person addressed with their two different names in adjacent sentences, making it seem like two different people are referred to, but it's one person. It is for this one reason that I gave the work 4 stars. If it represents the historical formality and idiosyncresy of the time, then I give four stars instead of five for 19th-century Russian idiocy.

Finally, the point of the book. Who is the idiot here? It is clear that Myshkin, who is naive and having epilepsy, is the idiot. But his naivety is not weird, really. His naivety is actually compassion, a Christ-like attribute. And certainly, epilepsy is not a mood disorder or mental limitation, except maybe it was perceived that way at the time. The question is whether Dostoevsky actually perceived Myshkin as an idiot. I believe it is possible he did not; that is, the author may have been mocking the general population's definition of idiot. When I finished the book, and actually before finishing, I realized that while Myshkin is the idiot of the title, he is actually about the only sane person in the story. Virtually all the other characters act like idiots, morons, jerks, etc. It may be that Dostoevsky was mocking "normal" society. If he wasn't, he nonetheless did so, and quite effectively and satisfyingly.

First, let me respond to the other review on this edition. It seems that many long works of the 19th century are "guilty" of the same thing--saying a lot more than necessary to make the point. Yes, The Idiot, like Les Miserable, like War and Peace, could have been reduced to 200 to 300 pages, even less, but that wasn't the style of the time. My recommendation in approaching these works, as with much we ever do, is to take the Zen approach: enjoy the process of life presented in the book without much attention to the goal. Once one reaches the goal, in the case finishing the book, the person is at once unfulfilled again, needing something else to read and intrigue the mind. So enjoy the present moment in the book, any book.

That being said, The Idiot is rather curious to me on one point. I don't know if this is part of Russian style, but why did Dostoevsky find it necessary, in virtually every case, to use full names, even when one person is addressing a close friend or family member. Also, why does virtually every person have 2 names, names which aren't even similar to each other? I highly recommend, if you want to keep the characers straight, that you keep a list in your book as characters show up as to what their dual names are. I mean, you will find one person addressed with their two different names in adjacent sentences, making it seem like two different people are referred to, but it's one person. It is for this one reason that I gave the work 4 stars. If it represents the historical formality and idiosyncresy of the time, then I give four stars instead of five for 19th-century Russian idiocy.

Finally, the point of the book. Who is the idiot here? It is clear that Myshkin, who is naive and having epilepsy, is the idiot. But his naivety is not weird, really. His naivety is actually compassion, a Christ-like attribute. And certainly, epilepsy is not a mood disorder or mental limitation, except maybe it was perceived that way at the time. The question is whether Dostoevsky actually perceived Myshkin as an idiot. I believe it is possible he did not; that is, the author may have been mocking the general population's definition of idiot. When I finished the book, and actually before finishing, I realized that while Myshkin is the idiot of the title, he is actually about the only sane person in the story. Virtually all the other characters act like idiots, morons, jerks, etc. It may be that Dostoevsky was mocking "normal" society. If he wasn't, he nonetheless did so, and quite effectively and satisfyingly.

Counted among Dostoevsky's greatest masterworks, The Idiot impresses on many levels. The characters are soulful and tempestuous amidst the swirl of events surrounding the sudden appearance of a Russian blue-blood named Prince Myshkin, who suffers from both epilepsy and a gaucheness that's ill-suited to St. Petersburg life.

Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin is considered a fool by all who meet him, including two bombshells, a courtesan named Nastassya Filippovna and a young, mischievous society beauty named Agalya, both of whom fall madly in love with his openness and exciting unpredictability. The young man, in his twenties, returns their romantic love in a singular way: Agalya he loves romantically and Nastassya he loves with a kind of messianic compassion. The complications and various kinds of love escalate from there, and through Dostoevsky's wonderful prose, we get to experience a morality play where beauty and goodness are cast against storms of human darkness and intrigue.

If this all sounds like a great read, it is, but by choosing an avatar like Prince Myshkin as an embodiment of purity, Dostoevsky is forced to deal with the repercussions, namely the problem of developing a savior-like hero who's not--decidedly not--an actual deity; the author's contrast between Myshkin and Christ in the novel can only go so far. Indeed, the prince is a bull in a china shop who teeters on the edge of madness himself, and as his passions wind up to stratospheric levels and he lashes out in terror at the facile images around him, we find the most honest and compassionate characters in the novel are not of him, but are of those who love him. Especially the sublime Agalya, who, despite her puckish ways, remains a rock in Myshkin's sea and her mother Lizaveta, whose steadfastness contrasts sharply with Myshkin's infidelity.

Interestingly, Myshkin is asexual. His soulful and disembodied love for two women never boils into lust, and although the young man becomes choked with emotion, it's invariably over the lots and predicaments in which he finds himself rather than amidst carnal desire for his beau ideals. More disturbingly, via his purity and distance from the fray, the prince stands apart from humanity, so when his love interests are torn and suffering, it seems beyond his capacity to rush to their aid, even with an embrace.

This is a fascinating character study, but Dostoevsky seems muddled here. The prince is a contradiction between indifference and compassion whose complexity says more about his own psychology than it does about virtue or human nature. Part of the problem here may be a prudish sensibility and insufficient editing on Dostoevsky's part, but the greater part of it, I'm reluctant to say, comes from the book's lack of focus. The prince hangs back throughout the story, and by the time he's fully realized, the author exhibits a remarkable coolness toward the destruction that has crashed around Myshkin, for by this point, one fears, the protagonist's goodness has reversed.

My Titles
Shadow Fields
Snooker Glen
Dasha

Fyodor Dostoyevsky is brilliant! I haven't read one of his books that I didn't absolutely love!
Take a look at his bio if you haven't already.
Crime and Punishment as well as The Brothers Karamazov are excellent reads too!

As many others have noted below. the Idiot is one of the enduring works of literature from one of the greatest novelists in history. It is packed with ideas , wonderfully realized characters and dialogue and is undoubtedly worth the effort required to read on through some of the slower set pieces that Dostoevsky frequently employs. I personally found Crime and Punishment and the story of Razkolnikov's struggle with guilt far more compelling than Prince Myshkin's purity and innocence in the Idiot. Both novels are rewarding but if I were to recommend only one to someone looking to read Dostoevsky for the first time I would choose C and P.

The Idiot and Crime and Punishment were both EXCELLENT works by this author. He is TRULY a great writer. In this story, a man suffers an illness and thereby is considered by all around him to be an idiot. He suffers many trials and tribulations at the hands of selfish and uncaring as well as well-intentioned peers and elders who call him, TO HIS FACE, an idiot But who is REALLY the idiot? An intellectual work of art.

B0082XK7IM

Though this novel may not be as technically clear as /Crime and Punishment/ or /The Gambler/, it is an read indispensable for the true Dostoyevsky fan. More similar in style to Tolstoy, it employs a much greater sweep of characters and time than earlier novels.
Some of the characters are absolutely fantastic, such as the Prince Myshkin himself, Roghozin, Ganya Ardalionovich, and Natassya Philopovna, and others are just a little bit too far over the top for my tastes, such as the old General and the mother of the three daughters (whose name escapes me).
The Prince can be read both as a golden example of what an ideal person (a true Christian) should behave like, and an ironic comment on the superficiality and decadence of our society and the utter infeasability of the life of such a sacrificial lamb. Perhaps his undoing is his intelligence, if he wasn't so smart, he really would be an Idiot, but as it is, he is both too trusting and too discerning at the same time.
Some of the scenes are magnificent, such as Hippolite's monologue, and the final tableau....I won't spoil them, but I must say that even if the entire book wasn't so good, it would still be worth reading to just imagine these scenes.
This book, much more than /Crime and Punishment/, serves as a vehicle for Dostoyevsky to deliver his own views on nihilism, the death sentence, and various and sundry other topics. While interesting, he doesn't always manage to make them flow well into the story.
For any fans of existentialism, this is a must read, as Albert Camus practically lifted many of his ideas for The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus from several sections of this work.

Dostoevsky is brilliant in this fascinating portrayal of an innocent thrust into the modern world. As always, he creates characters so realistic and multi-faceted that they transform into living, breathing, pitiable, three-dimensional people - as real as your own family, by the novel's end.
One particularly fascinating passage describes a man's thoughts and emotions as he endures the final minutes before his own impending execution, until his life is suddenly spared at the last moment. Dostoevsky himself narrowly escaped execution in his youth, having been granted a last-minute reprieve. This passage not only sheds new light on his experience, but manages to make the death penalty forever more real for us all.
Dostoevsky's insights into what motivates humans to behave as they do, including the insane, the hopelessly in love, the greedy, and the pure in heart, is heart-breaking in its accuracy. A good read that will keep you thinking about it for days and weeks after its conclusion.

Princy Myshkin is perceived by others around him as being an idiot, but I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether he really is one. Some characters perceive him to be the most trustworthy man they have ever meant, while others call him an intellectual and a democrat. Yet, most revert back to calling him an idiot.

The book is full of the basest characters, and only Myshkin can offer them a shot at redemption. He sees them for their true selves, good or bad, and loves them for who they are. Myshkin has been called a Russian Christ and is one of the most provocative characters that I have come accross in literature.

In addition to Dostoevsky's strong characterization, this book also includes the author's critique of capital punishment, the role of women in society, and the role of aristocracy. The book is both introspective and political, although not overly so. I found it to be a new favorite of mind, and I am sure it will stick with me for awhile. It is a very good novel.

The Idiot -- which might more fairly be called The Naïf -- follows a wide-eyed innocent as he leaves his Swiss sanitarium for Russian high society and generally finds himself unprepared for its corruption and amorality. Some of these events are droll, but I felt there were too many tangents and too many instances of characters sounding like mouthpieces for the author's philosophizing rather than distinct and realistic personalities. Ultimately I didn't get much out of this read.

Fyodor did not deal much with the soft shell of irony, usually preferring the heavy clunk of an iron spade to make his points. However he permitted himself the vast irony of using "The Idiot" as the title for a book detailing the only rational person in a sea of insane, reactionary, intemperate humanity.
This is the Russian version of "Stranger in a Strange Land', whereby the foibles of society are exposed through the eyes of an outsider who possesses none of them. Myshkin is trusting, loyal, honest, without deceit. This arouses at first suspicion, then avarice in various forms, then scorn, then indifference.
Myshkin, however, never fails to love and try to understand those who do such odd things.
It may be useful and interesting for modern society to ponder that something is thought to be wrong with someone who only wishes to love and understand. At any rate, I love the book.

First of all, I wonder who's bright idea it was to put such a absurd cover painting on The Idiot! Yes, intellectually Myshkin is another version Jesus -(who was another "idiot" in the Dostoyevskian sense) yet it reflects absolutely nohting about the novel itself. The novel is naive, its beautiful and Myshkin is not dead but well alive during the novel.

Prince Myshkin (the idiot) is a naive and good-hearted man, (and also a very sweet and charming man). He has just returned from Europe, where he has been isolated from the world for a period to undergo a surgery. His isolation and his epileptic falls has in his own words "turned him into being an idiot". His problem is that he lacks a mighty ego, and something material to hold onto in life. In other words, things that makes a man a man today. And interestingly, he don't seem to be in any need for such things. So his story is bound to be tragic and problematic. Still, as the novel deepens it becomes obvious that Myshkin's 'problem' is not that he's an "idiot" actually, but that he observes things around him with very different eyes. More sincere and humane eyes. He's an idiot in the eye of Holywood heroism. His behaviour is "idiocy" in the eyes of modernism with its own "unique" value-structure (money, fame, power, etc.). He conveys a childness that people around him can, at best, pity. Myshkin is the true "good man", partly Don Quixote, partly Jeal Valjan, partly Dostoevsky.

This was only the second novel by Dostoevsky that I've read, the other being Crime and Punishment. This novel moved slowly, but never seemed ponderous to me and Dostoevsky's use of language is exquisite. The prose is dense and getting used to the Russian names was a challenge, but ultimately rewarding.

Without giving too much away, the plot concerns Prince Myshkin, an epileptic returning to Russia from Switzerland. He becomes involved in a love triangle with the dark Rogozhin and the beautiful, damaged Natasya Fillapovna, which spirals into a love pentagon (?!) involving the intelligent, beautiful Aglaya Ivanovich Yepanchina and the opportunistic Gavrila Ardalionovich Ivogin. There are other subplots as well, but most tie into this complex situation. Many of the characters are designed to represent an ideal or an aspect of humanity.

The novel revolves around this passionate intrigue, but also raises questions about social, religious, political, and family structure that remain not only relevant to the time period of the novel and Dostoevsky's reality, but for the modern era as well. It would be impossible to encapsulate all the ideas raised by this novel, but I found it a very profound, fascinating read on many levels. It's a book that's going to stay with me for some time, not just because of its central story, but because of the ideas contained within. Highly recommended.

It is said that if you take a zillion monkeys and set each of them clacking away at a typewriter then eventually one of them will produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Well to produce such a book as "The Idiot," you would need to employ in place of the monkeys, a similar number of brilliant authors - genuises no less - and maybe, just maybe a book as excellent as Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" might be produced.
If some of the duller parts of the Bible are supposed to have been written under the guidance of divine inspiration, what then are we to suppose of a work like this that glows with spiritual power?

I am a big Dostoyevsky head, but this is certainly one of his weaker novels. If you're starting on Dostoyevsky, go for the big one, The Brothers Karamazov, or the little one, Notes from Underground.
King Dosty creates a fantastic set of characters and gets out his axe grinder; it comes together fairly slowly, but completing the book will be rewarding. Gracing the pages we have nihilists, slavophobes, endearing characters and despicables. Dostoyevsky was attempting to depict an honest, pure man (Prince Myshkin). Chances are all readers will like and admire Myshkin until about 3/4 of the way through, where things start to get really hairy:
A scene is delightfully prepared with humor; Prince Myshkin, about to marry a Aglaia Epanchin (a beautiful young daughter of a well-off general) is exposed to aristocratic 'society' at a party. The way Dostoyevsky prepares you is reminiscent of some of Tolstoy's depictions of aristocrats; humorously jibing and illustrating their ridiculousness, yet appreciating the fact that they are human beings. Anyhow, the party is a make-or break opportunity for Myshkin; if he pleases the aristos, the Epanchin family will approve of the marriage and he will live happily ever afer with beautiful Aglaia. All Myshkin has to do is keep his mouth shut (as the Epanchins begged him to do beforehand), but regrettably, he does not. Impassioned, the Prince delivers a few splutterings about religion and Russia's destiny to one of the distinguished aristos. It appears that Myshkin here is really a mouthpeice for Dostoyevsky himself - and not the Ivan Karamazov doubting part of Dostoyevsky, what Myshkin says at this interval is what Dostoyevsky *really* believes. And the beliefs are rather too much for me to swallow: Catholicism is, in Myshkin's opinion, worse than atheism, the nihilist socialists have a deep hatred of Russia, etc.. we see the true extent of Dostoyevsky's reactionary religious beliefs. The aristocrat gentlemen try to mollify Myshkin a little, but to no avail; they leave seeing him as an oddity. The marriage with Aglaia falls through.
After reading Myshkin's outburst, I could only blink a few times. Is this what Alyosha K. would say if pressed the same way? Thank goodness he didn't, otherwise Brothers K would have been a bit less enduring...
But the book is still not a bad book! At the very least, Dostoyevsky shows how absolutely nutty people can become when it comes to passionate love. This isn't a simple love triangle, its a love quadrilateral!! But beyond the love story, you'll see social criticism, political and philosophical debates, pyschological analysis... in short, the typical complex and awesome Dostoyevsky novel. But, as I said above, its not Dosty at his best. Oh - and its a tragedy. You didn't think the Christ-man would be accepted by the sinful world, did you?

Having read "Crime and Punishment" fifteen years ago, I was prepared for Dostoevsky's commentary on the social and materialistic qualities of the Russian middle class of the 19th Century. "The Idiot" has a slower pace but a surprise ending which makes reading it well worth the effort.
The novel begins with three strangers in a train en route to Petersburg. A young man named Prince Myshkin is returning from a Swiss sanatorium where he has been treated for the past few years for some malady similar to epilepsy. He meets a roguish young man named Rogozhin, who has an unhealthy obsession with a beautiful young woman named Nastasya Filippovna, and a nosy government official named Lebedyev, who figures prominently throughout the novel.
Upon arriving in Petersburg, Myshkin acquaints himself with many of the citizens and eventually meets, and is infatuated by, Nastasya. She is pushy, fickle, and impetuous, and bounces from fiance to fiance like a fortune hunter. Her irresistibility and psychological stronghold on the men in her life leads to her downfall.
The basis of the novel is that Myshkin is not bright, has not had much education, and traverses society with a mentality of simplistic innocence. When speaking his opinion, he struggles to articulate himself with Charlie Brown-like stammering and wishy-washiness. For this reason, people consider him an idiot, but he is a good, honest, sympathetic, and gracious person. When he comes into a large inheritance, he is blackmailed by a man who claims to be the illegitimate son of Myshkin's benefactor; but when the man's story is debunked, Myshkin befriends rather than chastises the culprit and his accomplices. Myshkin also falls in love with and becomes betrothed to a giddy girl named Aglaia, who uses his ingenuousness as a foil for her jokes and sarcasm, despite his undying devotion to her.
The novel seems to say that a saintly man, making his way in a society that is concerned with materialism and cutthroat avarice, will be considered a childish idiot for valuing honesty, kindness, and the simple things in life. Like I said, the ending is a shocker and sends a plaintive message, that in a crazy world, a sanatorium is the only place for a saint.

Though this novel may not be as technically clear as /Crime and Punishment/ or /The Gambler/, it is an read indispensable for the true Dostoyevsky fan. More similar in style to Tolstoy, it employs a much greater sweep of characters and time than earlier novels.
Some of the characters are absolutely fantastic, such as the Prince Myshkin himself, Roghozin, Ganya Ardalionovich, and Natassya Philopovna, and others are just a little bit too far over the top for my tastes, such as the old General and the mother of the three daughters (whose name escapes me).
The Prince can be read both as a golden example of what an ideal person (a true Christian) should behave like, and an ironic comment on the superficiality and decadence of our society and the utter infeasability of the life of such a sacrificial lamb. Perhaps his undoing is his intelligence, if he wasn't so smart, he really would be an Idiot, but as it is, he is both too trusting and too discerning at the same time.
Some of the scenes are magnificent, such as Hippolite's monologue, and the final tableau....I won't spoil them, but I must say that even if the entire book wasn't so good, it would still be worth reading to just imagine these scenes.
This book, much more than /Crime and Punishment/, serves as a vehicle for Dostoyevsky to deliver his own views on nihilism, the death sentence, and various and sundry other topics. While interesting, he doesn't always manage to make them flow well into the story.
For any fans of existentialism, this is a must read, as Albert Camus practically lifted many of his ideas for The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus from several sections of this work.

Dostoevsky is brilliant in this fascinating portrayal of an innocent thrust into the modern world. As always, he creates characters so realistic and multi-faceted that they transform into living, breathing, pitiable, three-dimensional people - as real as your own family, by the novel's end.
One particularly fascinating passage describes a man's thoughts and emotions as he endures the final minutes before his own impending execution, until his life is suddenly spared at the last moment. Dostoevsky himself narrowly escaped execution in his youth, having been granted a last-minute reprieve. This passage not only sheds new light on his experience, but manages to make the death penalty forever more real for us all.
Dostoevsky's insights into what motivates humans to behave as they do, including the insane, the hopelessly in love, the greedy, and the pure in heart, is heart-breaking in its accuracy. A good read that will keep you thinking about it for days and weeks after its conclusion.

Princy Myshkin is perceived by others around him as being an idiot, but I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether he really is one. Some characters perceive him to be the most trustworthy man they have ever meant, while others call him an intellectual and a democrat. Yet, most revert back to calling him an idiot.

The book is full of the basest characters, and only Myshkin can offer them a shot at redemption. He sees them for their true selves, good or bad, and loves them for who they are. Myshkin has been called a Russian Christ and is one of the most provocative characters that I have come accross in literature.

In addition to Dostoevsky's strong characterization, this book also includes the author's critique of capital punishment, the role of women in society, and the role of aristocracy. The book is both introspective and political, although not overly so. I found it to be a new favorite of mind, and I am sure it will stick with me for awhile. It is a very good novel.

The Idiot -- which might more fairly be called The Naïf -- follows a wide-eyed innocent as he leaves his Swiss sanitarium for Russian high society and generally finds himself unprepared for its corruption and amorality. Some of these events are droll, but I felt there were too many tangents and too many instances of characters sounding like mouthpieces for the author's philosophizing rather than distinct and realistic personalities. Ultimately I didn't get much out of this read.

Fyodor did not deal much with the soft shell of irony, usually preferring the heavy clunk of an iron spade to make his points. However he permitted himself the vast irony of using "The Idiot" as the title for a book detailing the only rational person in a sea of insane, reactionary, intemperate humanity.
This is the Russian version of "Stranger in a Strange Land', whereby the foibles of society are exposed through the eyes of an outsider who possesses none of them. Myshkin is trusting, loyal, honest, without deceit. This arouses at first suspicion, then avarice in various forms, then scorn, then indifference.
Myshkin, however, never fails to love and try to understand those who do such odd things.
It may be useful and interesting for modern society to ponder that something is thought to be wrong with someone who only wishes to love and understand. At any rate, I love the book.

First of all, I wonder who's bright idea it was to put such a absurd cover painting on The Idiot! Yes, intellectually Myshkin is another version Jesus -(who was another "idiot" in the Dostoyevskian sense) yet it reflects absolutely nohting about the novel itself. The novel is naive, its beautiful and Myshkin is not dead but well alive during the novel.

Prince Myshkin (the idiot) is a naive and good-hearted man, (and also a very sweet and charming man). He has just returned from Europe, where he has been isolated from the world for a period to undergo a surgery. His isolation and his epileptic falls has in his own words "turned him into being an idiot". His problem is that he lacks a mighty ego, and something material to hold onto in life. In other words, things that makes a man a man today. And interestingly, he don't seem to be in any need for such things. So his story is bound to be tragic and problematic. Still, as the novel deepens it becomes obvious that Myshkin's 'problem' is not that he's an "idiot" actually, but that he observes things around him with very different eyes. More sincere and humane eyes. He's an idiot in the eye of Holywood heroism. His behaviour is "idiocy" in the eyes of modernism with its own "unique" value-structure (money, fame, power, etc.). He conveys a childness that people around him can, at best, pity. Myshkin is the true "good man", partly Don Quixote, partly Jeal Valjan, partly Dostoevsky.

This was only the second novel by Dostoevsky that I've read, the other being Crime and Punishment. This novel moved slowly, but never seemed ponderous to me and Dostoevsky's use of language is exquisite. The prose is dense and getting used to the Russian names was a challenge, but ultimately rewarding.

Without giving too much away, the plot concerns Prince Myshkin, an epileptic returning to Russia from Switzerland. He becomes involved in a love triangle with the dark Rogozhin and the beautiful, damaged Natasya Fillapovna, which spirals into a love pentagon (?!) involving the intelligent, beautiful Aglaya Ivanovich Yepanchina and the opportunistic Gavrila Ardalionovich Ivogin. There are other subplots as well, but most tie into this complex situation. Many of the characters are designed to represent an ideal or an aspect of humanity.

The novel revolves around this passionate intrigue, but also raises questions about social, religious, political, and family structure that remain not only relevant to the time period of the novel and Dostoevsky's reality, but for the modern era as well. It would be impossible to encapsulate all the ideas raised by this novel, but I found it a very profound, fascinating read on many levels. It's a book that's going to stay with me for some time, not just because of its central story, but because of the ideas contained within. Highly recommended.

It is said that if you take a zillion monkeys and set each of them clacking away at a typewriter then eventually one of them will produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Well to produce such a book as "The Idiot," you would need to employ in place of the monkeys, a similar number of brilliant authors - genuises no less - and maybe, just maybe a book as excellent as Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" might be produced.
If some of the duller parts of the Bible are supposed to have been written under the guidance of divine inspiration, what then are we to suppose of a work like this that glows with spiritual power?

I am a big Dostoyevsky head, but this is certainly one of his weaker novels. If you're starting on Dostoyevsky, go for the big one, The Brothers Karamazov, or the little one, Notes from Underground.
King Dosty creates a fantastic set of characters and gets out his axe grinder; it comes together fairly slowly, but completing the book will be rewarding. Gracing the pages we have nihilists, slavophobes, endearing characters and despicables. Dostoyevsky was attempting to depict an honest, pure man (Prince Myshkin). Chances are all readers will like and admire Myshkin until about 3/4 of the way through, where things start to get really hairy:
A scene is delightfully prepared with humor; Prince Myshkin, about to marry a Aglaia Epanchin (a beautiful young daughter of a well-off general) is exposed to aristocratic 'society' at a party. The way Dostoyevsky prepares you is reminiscent of some of Tolstoy's depictions of aristocrats; humorously jibing and illustrating their ridiculousness, yet appreciating the fact that they are human beings. Anyhow, the party is a make-or break opportunity for Myshkin; if he pleases the aristos, the Epanchin family will approve of the marriage and he will live happily ever afer with beautiful Aglaia. All Myshkin has to do is keep his mouth shut (as the Epanchins begged him to do beforehand), but regrettably, he does not. Impassioned, the Prince delivers a few splutterings about religion and Russia's destiny to one of the distinguished aristos. It appears that Myshkin here is really a mouthpeice for Dostoyevsky himself - and not the Ivan Karamazov doubting part of Dostoyevsky, what Myshkin says at this interval is what Dostoyevsky *really* believes. And the beliefs are rather too much for me to swallow: Catholicism is, in Myshkin's opinion, worse than atheism, the nihilist socialists have a deep hatred of Russia, etc.. we see the true extent of Dostoyevsky's reactionary religious beliefs. The aristocrat gentlemen try to mollify Myshkin a little, but to no avail; they leave seeing him as an oddity. The marriage with Aglaia falls through.
After reading Myshkin's outburst, I could only blink a few times. Is this what Alyosha K. would say if pressed the same way? Thank goodness he didn't, otherwise Brothers K would have been a bit less enduring...
But the book is still not a bad book! At the very least, Dostoyevsky shows how absolutely nutty people can become when it comes to passionate love. This isn't a simple love triangle, its a love quadrilateral!! But beyond the love story, you'll see social criticism, political and philosophical debates, pyschological analysis... in short, the typical complex and awesome Dostoyevsky novel. But, as I said above, its not Dosty at his best. Oh - and its a tragedy. You didn't think the Christ-man would be accepted by the sinful world, did you?

Having read "Crime and Punishment" fifteen years ago, I was prepared for Dostoevsky's commentary on the social and materialistic qualities of the Russian middle class of the 19th Century. "The Idiot" has a slower pace but a surprise ending which makes reading it well worth the effort.
The novel begins with three strangers in a train en route to Petersburg. A young man named Prince Myshkin is returning from a Swiss sanatorium where he has been treated for the past few years for some malady similar to epilepsy. He meets a roguish young man named Rogozhin, who has an unhealthy obsession with a beautiful young woman named Nastasya Filippovna, and a nosy government official named Lebedyev, who figures prominently throughout the novel.
Upon arriving in Petersburg, Myshkin acquaints himself with many of the citizens and eventually meets, and is infatuated by, Nastasya. She is pushy, fickle, and impetuous, and bounces from fiance to fiance like a fortune hunter. Her irresistibility and psychological stronghold on the men in her life leads to her downfall.
The basis of the novel is that Myshkin is not bright, has not had much education, and traverses society with a mentality of simplistic innocence. When speaking his opinion, he struggles to articulate himself with Charlie Brown-like stammering and wishy-washiness. For this reason, people consider him an idiot, but he is a good, honest, sympathetic, and gracious person. When he comes into a large inheritance, he is blackmailed by a man who claims to be the illegitimate son of Myshkin's benefactor; but when the man's story is debunked, Myshkin befriends rather than chastises the culprit and his accomplices. Myshkin also falls in love with and becomes betrothed to a giddy girl named Aglaia, who uses his ingenuousness as a foil for her jokes and sarcasm, despite his undying devotion to her.
The novel seems to say that a saintly man, making his way in a society that is concerned with materialism and cutthroat avarice, will be considered a childish idiot for valuing honesty, kindness, and the simple things in life. Like I said, the ending is a shocker and sends a plaintive message, that in a crazy world, a sanatorium is the only place for a saint.

With the third major novel from Dostoevsky's post-Siberian era, we encounter a striking volte-face from techniques and thematic focus employed in his previous works. Whereas works like Crime and Punishment allow the reader to savor the bitter fruit of rational egoism through the actions of its protagonist, The Idiot in sharp contrast revolves around the interactions of a "perfectly beautiful man". What is the outcome of this simulation? Does Dostoevsky succeed in this most ambitious goal?
SYNOPSIS: Prince Myshkin returns to Russia from a clinic in Switzerland. From the very first scene, the Prince makes rapid fire acquaintances, all of whom are affected in varying degrees by his disarming naivete and sincerity. One thing leads to another, and the first part culminates in an uproarious scandal at a party of a notorious kept-woman, Nastasya Filippovna. The next two parts explore the various side-themes developed mostly by other characters, while the Prince mostly languishes, torn between the love for Nastasya and Aglaya. In the final part, the two rivals of his heart head for an inevitable collision course ...
Before I proceed any further, I think some admonition is useful for the would-be reader. First of all, this is probably not a good gateway drug into Dostoevsky. It's obvious that The Idiot is the most chaotic of the great post-Siberian novels (in the straitened circumstances under which it was written, it is not surprising) and so its result is mixed. Whatever the novelistic norm of his day was, the condemning fact stands that the middle two parts smother the Myshkin-Christ plot under loosely tied, though interesting, side-plots. In fact, the first part was brilliant, and can possibly stand by itself as a short story, while the next two diluted it. The idea is ambitious enough as it is, to bury it under subplots is bad.
I also felt that events like Ippolit's confession amidst a raging Champagne party, is too melodramatic even for Dostoevsky, an author who does require some resistance to saccharine scenes from the reader. Compounded to this, is a bewildering web of intrigues, the motivations for which is too vaguely intimated. Furthermore, there are some characters like the sycophant Lebedev or Keller ("gentleman with the fists") who is more cartoon villain than human and mars the human scenery. In the end I'm almost tempted to side with Dostoevsky's friend Apollon Maikov who thought that the characters are lighted with an artificial "electric spark", which casts a "supernatural brilliance" on these fantastic creations. Between the lines, the letters spell `hokey'.
BUT, here is what I think the reader ought to keep in mind when tackling Dostoevsky: the reader should not expect concrete realism from Dostoevsky. A suitable metaphor for Dostoevsky's supercharged characters is what the engineers and mathematicians call a Laplace Transform. In the process, equations are inevitably brought to what is called the "s-domain". It always struck me as being very odd that a totally fictitious space would somehow help in distilling truth out of reality. But this resembles albeit superficially the function of Dostoevsky's "fantastic realism" as I understand it. Many of Dostoevsky's important characters cannot exist (I hope); they are by and large too supercharged, volatile, a bit sappy, and overall too fantastic for the earth. But Dostoevsky is not interested in writing some trite chronicle-of-a-dysfunctional-family. He is after the eternal themes of humanity, which in the context of The Idiot would be: theodicy (consider: why shouldn't the ailing Ippolit rebel against his fate?), and existence of God (the omnipresent and provocative picture by Hans Holbein) among others. These are certainly themes you cannot easily explore by having a bunch of characters, say, eat donuts over coffee placidly discussing the merits of a lawn sprinkler or something. By necessity, the characters are jazzed up and hyper-activated, in order that, once set free, their energetic trajectories would reveal something profound about ourselves we would otherwise have not known. According to this internal logic, then, the near-hysterical encounters are, if not justified, valid.
Lastly, there is the problem of Prince Myshkin's personality. My personal opinion is that it is disjointed. There is a clear discontinuity between Myshkin in Part I and the rest. The original Myshkin - the one I prefer - is nominally "an idiot" but his brutally frank opinions adumbrate a very keen understanding of humanity. He says to Ganya, for instance, that "... you're simply the most ordinary man that could be, only very weak and not the least bit original." (pg.122) This appraisal cannot be more correct though inopportune. The uncompromising sincerity of his tone, manners, and motives form a splendid contrast to that of the hypocritical personages surrounding Nastasya at her birthday party. In the later parts, either the narrator is distancing himself further from Myshkin (until it breaks completely in "... because we ourselves, in many cases, have difficulty explaining what happened." (pg.573)) or the remission of his `idiocy' is slowly fading, either one of these facts must excuse the break in his character. But at least the discontinuity is finite and the transform should still work. Apparently, the author himself was undecided over the nature of his idealized man, but then again, it is only appropriate that he stay enigmatic. After all, the gospels themselves are narrated by people other than Jesus himself, (on a lesser note) Malory does not give us access to Sir Galahad's mind only to Lancelot's, and it is difficult to entertain the mindset of a Pickwick or Don Quixote directly.
In quick conclusion, what damage the over-theatrical elements and the diffuseness of the plot in The Idiot effects, is repaired by the puzzle of Myshkin and the eternal themes that crowd into 500 pages. The book is highly recommended for all people, but with the above warning in mind. Those who prefer down-to-earth and concrete storyline should look elsewhere. I also strongly recommend picking up Joseph Frank's "The Miraculous Years", a literary-historical biography of Dostoevsky to which this reviewer is heavily indebted.

The Idiot is the book equivalent of the Saturday New York Times crossword puzzle. As that day's puzzles are the most challenging, enigmatic, erudite and complex in the world of crosswords, so too is this Dostoyevsky masterpiece in the world of literature. I have probably read a few thousand books in my life, but none so demanding as this. The philosophical scrutinies, psychological observations, political perspectives, social commentaries and spiritual insights that sometimes go on for pages require your utmost attention as well as frequent breaks from reading to process, making you feel as though you're studying for a final exam in 19th century Russian thought instead of enjoying a celebrated drawing-room comedy-tragedy-romance. (This book is Sense and Sensibility told from the perspective of the Grim Reaper.) Still, there are so many deep and rich observations about the human condition and the characters--especially the Christlike "idiot" Prince Myshkin, every bit as titan as Hamlet or Don Quixote--are so brilliantly portrayed that you don't regret a single moment of brain-racking rumination for the pleasure of spending part of your life with them. (I'm glad to have met you, femme fatale Nastasya Filippovna, impetuous beauty Aglaia Epanchin, exasperated matron Madam Epanchin, two-timing scoundrel General Ivolgin, faithful street urchin Kolya, aggravating consumptive Ippolit and untrustworthy drunkard Lebedev, every bit Falstaff's equal in fun and hilarity.) Their unforgettable characterizations and an ending that will knock you out make The Idiot a book you must read at least once in your life, an intellectual challenge of the highest order that you'll feel as triumphant finishing as a Saturday New York Times crossword puzzle.

My comments and review are here based solely on the translation work of Constance Garnett, not the actual text behind it.
I found this translation so stilted as to be almost unreadable. This problem was greatest in the short utterances of some of the charcters. They would respond to what the main character of that portion was saying, but I generally had no sense of what those responses meant.
My guess is that Ms. Garnett, in her attempt to stay faithful to the Russian, stayed away from using English idiom, but this sadly resulted in severe loss of clarity. I would recommend that potential readers look for a more modern translation.

The Idiot is Dostoevsky's second novel. The book is a hybrid of biographical sketches and anecdotes of the writer. The protagonist, Prince Myshkin, bears traces of his creator in his suffering of epilepsy. Dostoevsky often deviates from the main plot and voices his perspectives on pain, suffering, capital punishment, and moral goodness.
The notion of suffering incessantly sifts through the novel as if true suffering plays a key role in purifying the protagonist and granting him the overriding power to the [evil] society in which he seeks to gain acceptance. However excruciating and painful it might be, physical suffering and bodily agony would distract the mind from spiritual suffering. That is, the physical aching deprives functioning of mental thinking. The worst suffering, as Prince Myshkin contemplates, are the knowledge and the inevitable truth of one's imminent death, the invincible parting of soul with the body. Being mindful of one's death would only perpetuate suffering. Readers should grip this idea and bear in mind.
Morally upright, magnanimous, forgiving, humble, loving, honest, virtuous and mindful of others needs, Prince Myshkin embodies all human virtue and goodness. He is almost like God, or perfecting to be like God. He is a man capable of an ideal. He is stuck and torn between the love of Aglaia and Natasya upon his return to Russia from medical treatment in Switzerland. Myshkin's self-stigmatizing, humble, and diffident element often agitated Aglaia whose love for him manifests to the full in her passionate recital of a poor knight poem. She shows desire to marry him despite the wonted taunting. She assures that Myshkin is more honorable than anybody is and nobody is worth his little finger let alone his heart and soul.
Out of volition and obligation, Myshkin believes he is responsible to rescue the vile, [evil] Natasya from her deranged mental state. The cause of his love for her was more than just the bewitching, demonical beauty: it is rather eagerness on Myshkin's part to be of service to his country after being abroad. He has long set an ideal and having faith in such ideal empowers him to give up his life blindly to it. Though Natasya is surprised at Myshkin's discerning words that she ought to be ashamed and that she is not what she pretends to be, she tortures herself by not falling in love with him lest to disgrace and ruin his life.
In her importunate letters to Aglaia, Natasya implored and coaxed her to marry Myshkin as she did not wish to besmirch him. But destiny plays a cruel joke on them. Myshkin bears such tender spot for the afflicted, disgraced women in Natasya. However pertinacious not to love him, Natasya acknowledges his irresistible impact on her and regards him as the first and only man she has met in her whole life that she has believed in as a sincere friend. When Aglaia accuses her being a manipulator, Natasya falls down on her knees and thwarts Myshkin from leaving, who then comforts her and agrees to marry her.
Many readers, myself included, would mull at the meaning of the title. It would be impossible to do Myshkin justice by abasing him as an idiot. A simpleton at best? Myshkin is looked upon as an idiot (from Greek meaning private and ignorant) for his not being compromised with the vanity, vices, [evilness], mendacity, and avarice of a vain society. Unyielding as he might be, it is almost like naivete that Myshkin always resolves to be courteous, honest, and trustful with everyone. Such naivete somehow gives way to philosophical outlook and idealism and thus ennobled him. Others harbor the effrontery to inveigle him, to launch a calumny against him in order to usurp his fortune. Maybe his ignorance of the vile and magnanimity for others' wrongdoings create in him an idiot (a private person).
The Idiot, as cumbersome and lengthy as it seems, is rather a simple novel in plot. Dostoevsky often deviates from the main plot to reflect (and to reiterate) his philosophy through the prince, somehow bears an overriding sense of mission in the society, if not the whole world. I have denounce some critics' portraying the story as some bitter love triangle, for Dostoevsky has no room for a melodrama. In an epic that evokes Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Dostoevsky seeks out the most ordinary characters whose ordinary tales (Madame Epanchins' imaginative troubles and whining, Ippolit's nightmares, General Ivolgin's delirious memories of his childhood encounter with Napoleon) lend a special note of verisimilitude in the lives of Russians.
Like Crime and Punishment, The Idiot is dim, melancholy, doleful, and somber though the Epanchins, Lebedyev, and General Ivolgin animated, lightened up with a tinge of comic relief. Myshkin's desire to cure Natasya of her madness only relapsed himself into insanity. The Idiot evokes in readers a sense of tenderness and sympathy for the protagonist whose unyielding righteousness impedes him from resolving his own plight. 4.2 stars.

A perfect description of a typical, modern middle-class or upper middle-class family that appears normal but is rotten within. Every member is thoroughly selfish and they manipulate each other, and anyone else within reach, to get whatever it is they feel entitled to at the moment. Into this enters the Prince, who has a purity of soul that inspires both derision and admiration ( often both at once ), and that everyone wants a piece of. His approval ( or "blessing" ), unbiased, reasoned, and saintly, becomes the most powerful force in this fractured household. And, as a result of being scupulously fair and trying to please every conniving member, he is in constant emotional turmoil. This, tragically, leads him to retreat from the home, and finally, to retreat into his own mind.

Dostoyevsky's brilliant take on the idealistic "holy fool" thrust into society after many years of study and isolation, means as much today as it did then. Maybe, more so. If you liked the movies "American Beauty", "Rushmore", "Election", or "Training Day", then you will probably enjoy this classic novel just as much as I did.

I love this book, love it. Overall it's not as good as Crime and Punishment or Brothers Karamazov, but I think it offers something a little different, and worthwhile in it's own right.

C&P and Brothers, while dreary, have some sort of resolution to them, which leaves you feeling not cheerful, but if nothing else, a little satisfied. The Idiot on the other hand is straight up, unadulterated, depressing, tragedy. Prince Myshkin is so good, the women are so beautiful, and their lives are utterly twisted, ravaged, and destroyed. The end. I don't think another author has ever been so brutally cruel and merciless to his characters.

Only a God could save a world as terrible as the one that destroys Myshkin, and I think that's sort of the point of the book. This book is incredibly sad, and completely beautiful.

the four star rating is in comparison to other Dostoyevsky, but by other standards, this book would certainly be a five.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Idiot

Dostoyevsky wrote The Idiot during his sojourn in Europe (1867-71) where he had fled to escape his creditors. His obsession with gambling and the powerful impression made on him by Hans Holbein's figure of Christ taken from the cross are key motifs in the novel, which is dominated by the contrasting themes of acquisitiveness and Christian charity. Prince Myshkin, the Idiot and central figure, like his author, returns to Russia after four years in `civilised' Europe, where he has suffered poverty and epileptic fits. It is these seizures, as well as his childlike innocence that have led to him being dubbed `the idiot' by most of his fellow citizens. In a novel of over 600 closely packed pages and crammed with up to a hundred characters, the Prince is the sole touchstone of goodness. His frankness and innocence are seen by many as stupidity. He is even accused of vice and cunning when being simply disarmingly honest. He is often used as a pawn by calculating figures, such as the `villain' Rogozhin and the beautiful `fallen' woman, Nastasya Filippovna. To the Prince these are desperately unhappy people whom he seeks to rescue, but without success. He is trapped between two equally beautiful and impulsive young women, Nastasya Filippovna (full name used throughout) and Aglaya Yepanchin, the youngest of General Yepanchin's three unmarried daughters. The Prince, who confesses love and seems to have proposed marriage to both, is torn between their needs and his own need to save them from their darker selves. Both women have several suitors, some offering respectable futures, others desperate passion. Myshkin moves tortuously between both, giving advice, chasing after them, offering his disinterested love, yet in his heart knowing that he is a hopelessly laughable suitor.

Behind the love stories there are several recurrent themes that continually resurface, most notably the position of Russia in Europe - what it means to be a true Russian in a continent where the natives are seen as backward and uncivilised peasants. Tolstoy, too, was much concerned with this question, although to Dostoyevsky both he and Turgenev (with whom he quarrelled when in Europe) were contaminated by French and German influences. In fact the Prince, just before the onset of one of his epileptic seizures, uncharacteristically breaks silence, bursting out with a long tirade, inveighing against nihilists, Jews, atheists and the Catholic Church, much to the embarrassment of his hosts, the Yepanchins, who are, with other notables, about to celebrate his engagement to Aglaya, their youngest daughter. In other scenes, long speeches on legal, commercial, political and spiritual matters are given by others, but in these the Prince is either absent or remains quiescent. And of course there are always `the woman question' and the land ownership question, together with a sense of a decline in spiritual values.

I am not sure whether the modern reader will appreciate the rather old-fashioned narrative modes that Dostoyevsky employs in this novel. There are constant asides to the reader, telling us for example that `the motives of human actions are usually infinitely more complex and varied than we are apt to explain them afterwards, and can rarely be defined with certainty.' One is a little reminded of George Eliot, the Wise Woman who couldn't resist pointing a moral to adorn a tale. Then there is the position of the narrator himself, who confesses to being often absent at crucial times and being reduced to interpreting gossip or making speculation as to what might have happened. Chapter 9 of Part Four, for instance, begins with a Fielding-like introduction, putting the reader in the picture with `A fortnight has passed since the events described in the last chapter, and the position of the characters of our story had changed so much that we find it extremely difficult to continue without certain explanations. Yet we feel that we have to confine ourselves to a bare statement of facts, if possible, without any special explanations, and for a very simple reason: because we ourselves find it difficult in many instances to explain what took place ...' The digression continues and the reader waits impatiently. Of course the delaying tactic is a novelist's stock-in-trade, but Dostoyevsky, in this novel at least, occasionally oversteps the bounds of decency. Much of the `action' indeed is told through unreliable gossips or malicious liars. Myshkin goes missing for long periods and we are constantly given letters of distraught repentance, passionate love and regret (often false). Yes, our narrator, as he explained above, has a miserable time getting to the facts behind appearance and conjecture.

But these are perhaps minor quibbles in what is for the most part an intriguing and surprisingly convincing tale of a basically good and honest man in a nest of vipers. We have here again the solitary soul, the alienated Underground Man, but now resurfaced in the world of high society. The absorbed reader follows Prince Myshkin's encounters with drunks, braggarts, liars, deceivers, gamblers, lechers and murderers, from the streets of Petersburg to the country estate of Pavlovsk. Although the novel climaxes with a terrible murder, it is a less dark novel than the author's earlier Crime and Punishment - in fact it is at times extremely funny, for example when the sisters collapse with laughter over the Prince's revelation on seeing the donkey (ie himself) after a dream - but the theme of redemption through Christian suffering is paramount. Prince Myshkin embodies Christian values, but without being in the least evangelical or doctrinaire. He is able to laugh at himself and his foolishness - for he is often gauche and embarrassed in company - even managing, in spite of dire warnings, to break his hostess's precious Chinese vase in the exuberant outburst noted above. This is indeed a remarkable portrayal: - a Christ-like figure with no dignity and a keen sense of humour.

Dostoevsky's messiah, prince Myshkin, cannot save the corrupt world he enters. In a dark world that is torn apart by desire, money and chaos, Myshkin's compassion didn't save the sinners he cared for; rather it pushed them to complete and total destruction. In the end, Myshkin's failure forced him into despair and insanity.

Dostoevsky, strongly represents his personal beliefs in "the idiot": discussing religion as feelings instead of rules and rituals, expressing beauty as "enigma" that can't be defined, interacting with sinners and adulterers. Also, Myshkin, like Dostoevsky, suffered from epilepsy.

Unlike critics, I like to think of Dostoevsky as much deeper than just portraying his idiot as the perfect messiah, while portraying all others as sinners:

-Even though, Myshkin was portrayed as the light and Rogozhin as the dark; Rogozhin is the person who was devoted to one woman, while Myshkin is the one who was torn between his romantic love of Agalya and compassionate love of Nastassya.

-Even though Myshkin perceived Agalya as the light of his soul, he couldn't be strong for her when she demanded that he choose between her and Nastassya.

-Despite Myshkin idealism, he received some pleasure from his self denial and exemplary meekness and humility. He wanted to be different, but could not resist giving into his strong attraction to the dark tempting beauty of Nastassya. Typical man, chasing the pray gets more enticing when it tries to escape, even back in 1867.

-Good and evil had a confrontation more than once just like Myshkin and Rogozhin, but they both couldn't win and achieve their happiness. Was the confrontation a simple naïve struggle over Nastassya or was Dostoevsky portraying his own inner hell and his desperate love in real life to Suslova?

Maybe Dostoevsky didn't have all the answers to these weighty questions, but in the idiot he insinuated that the moral decay of society is not a stand alone aspect, and that humans are not merely victims. The corruption and chaos in the idiot's society was a result of the moral corruption of the characters themselves and the choices they made.

I read this novel about 30 years ago, and I loved it. I don't remember much now about too many of the characters except, of course, Prince Myshkin, one of the most fascinating characters in all of literature. He certainly was a Christ-like figure as many of the reviewers have stated, but I thought he was quite funny also. In fact, my impression was that the novel was simply a crackling good read--very entertaining story and in many ways a comic masterpiece. We should remember that Dostoevsky wrote his novels for the general public, to be read serially in popular periodicals in the 1880s, so they were geared to be enjoyed by the typical Russian reader and indeed they were. He was trying to earn a living so he had to be a good storyteller.
There's something else about this story that I don't think anybody else has touched on. When I was watching the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers and the movie "Forrest Gump" with Tom Hanks I kept thinking of this novel. All three narratives are basically the same story, aren't they? Remember the last scene in "Being There" when the child-like Peter Sellers character (Chance Gardner) is seemingly walking on water evoking christ-like imagery? And the Gump character--geez, if he doesn't remind you of the prince, nobody in popular fiction or cinema does. I'm sure the makers of these two movies were inspired by the same basic story written over 100 years ago by the great FD.

Dostoyevsky is the master of the art of creating the character. All his characters have a distinct personality, each of them behaving in a certain way, until you truly feel for those characters. But in The Idiot, things are different. You see the corruption of the people through the eyes of the innocent and loveable Prince Myshkin. But Myshkin is seen as an 'Idiot' because of his true kindness. Only the strong can survive in this world, or so it seems. The character of Hippolite is also a truly great character, as well as Rogozhin. Not a word should ever be changed from this awesome novel. Read it, change your view on life.

Prince Myshkin arrives off the train in St. Petersburg after a long trip from Switzerland. He finds himself unquestioningly accepted into a family of apparent upper crust and entangled in family affairs. In his first attempt to atone for the acceptance, he sights his discussion on Capital Punishment, Love, and his preference to be with children. The unconscious idea was to somehow convince the family that he was capable of conversing on complex subject matter and maintain an appreciation for innocence. After character introduction Dostyosky refers to Myshkin simply as the Prince, which puts a Russian version of Machiavelli twist into the formal and respectful portrayal of upper crust dialogue in St. Petersburg of the mid 1800's.

On a train the Prince describes to his newfound acquaintance Rogozhin his first hand experience and interpretation of capital punishment. I picked up on this theme, principally because of the author's previous books and TJs commentary on the author in the past. The Prince describes that moment of certain death of he being executed. He describes that pleading face for redemption. He describes a man going from full control to absolutely no control and total surrender. He proposes an opportunity for the guilty, to then with a stay of execution, go back into society a completely changed person, incapable of committing a crime. He only describes a face, and purposefully does not propose a stay to be actually carried through.

In prelude to the closing section the author plants an early seed with the supposition that there are two types of people of which to examine. First is the normal person, who is easily satisfied with a new revelation as though a novel idea, gleaned from the wisdom of someone else, was his or her own. The other type of person is one who is the creator of plans aimed at his personal promotion up his ladder of success. The second person spends his time vexed over the unsuccessful results of his narrow design on success. Leaving him in continuous chase for that one accomplishment that will define him as extraordinary and therefore successful. The central theme of both types of persons is the notion of originality. The ....please do a keyword search on cigarroomobooks.blog to examine my conclusion. I would love to hear tour thoughts.

What could have prompted me to first read "The Idiot" at age 13 on a beach vacation with my family I can not recall. What I do recall, however, is that I was fully engrossed day after day in a world of ideas, people and places far beyond my experience. Having now just "re-read" it 39 years later (following Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov), I know I couldn't possibly have digested all of its ideas at that age: atheism vs. Christianity; nihilism vs. a dying social order; Eros vs. charity; truth vs. artifice; id vs.ego and superego. And yet, I also sense I know what captivated me even then.

The characters in this novel, though usually explained as symbolic of the ideas they represent, are yet the most vividly realized characters I had ever "read" then, and still. The real-time manner in which they are drawn and followed is as if the author simply recorded their actions and conversations as and where they happened. We get to know who these people are, not through narrative description, but, as if by "candid camera", observing what they say, withhold, do, and fail to do. What emerges are fascinating, at times frightening and at times affectionate portraits of real and troubled humans: Lizaveta, the flighty, but loving society mother; General Epanchin, the successful but utterly conventional man of the house; Aglaya, the childish but delightful beauty who resents her sister's and parents' expectation for her; Ganya, who wants money and love, but plays the wounded martyr while more obviously blaming his father for his failures at both; Ivolgin, the pathetic figure of an aging man who aches for dignity and respect but who's former glory is long gone and mostly imagined; and Lebedev, the likeable sycophant and name-dropper.

The more central characters to the events, the murderously passionate Rogozhin, and the self-scorning beauty Nastasya, are more starkly drawn. But even those portraits are created not through direct thought narration or narrative description, but by the author's leading us to read between and behind the lines of their words, conversations with others, and public "displays".

As for the Prince himself, he is often said to symbolize the human side of a Christ-like man. That, of course, is true; but (as can also be seen in Aloysha, the hero of The Brothers Karamazov), he is as much child-like as he is like a Christ. The Prince's honesty, naiveté, trust, and simple affection for those around him, are all qualities that he seems to maintain as a man because he is really only entering the "adult" world of social Petersburg after a long and sheltered upbringing among younger children in Switzerland. When he enters this tangled world of adult competition, insecurity, envy, ambition and intrigue, though much older, he's in the most essential ways still the child that was sent by his benefactor to Switzerland for help with his illness.

One comes away with the strong impression (reinforced by the portrait of Aloysha, hero of Brothers Karamazov) that Dostoevsky saw children as embodying the ideal of spirit that we strive to maintain or regain as adults. The prince's obvious affection for the loyal young boy Kolya and the compassionate young girl Vera, in this book, and similar bonds between his hero Aloysha and the children in Karamozov Brothers, show Dostoevsky's admiration for the child in man.

The Idiot shows what happens when a simple, trusting and exceptionally compassionate child-man enters the more corrupt world of human adulthood without the experience to navigate, or even to perceive, the traps and snares laid by more worldly humans whose innocence has been chipped or stripped bare by ambition, envy, greed, despair or old age.

On another level, The Idiot is an allegory for the Christ story itself- with Prince Myshkin coming from the Swiss sanatorium into the "the world" of Petersburg with a mission to live among, love and save its people. The complications of heart and mind when his human emotions unexpectedly collide with the more selfish and less willing of those around him are at the center of this story of a second coming re-imagined.

One might be left, at the awfully tragic end of this novel, with the idea that Dostoevsky himself was of the same mind as Ippolit, the suicidal atheist, who his hero befriends of compassion. That is, from the disastrous conclusion, one might think that Dostoevsky believes that Holbein's painting (central to the story) of the disfigured and lifeless body of Christ the corpse, shows the impossibility of a divine spirit in (and after) a wretched human existence. Yet, it is with such affection that he describes the many and contradictory (and often delightful) sides of the "ordinary" people in this story, that I felt the opposite: that is, that Dostoevsky recognized not just in the tragically compassionate Prince, and the young Vera and Kolya, but also in the few and fleeting glimpses of love, friendship, compassion and even real dignity of the fallen or struggling others, that there is a redemptive force that underpins the human experience. If there were any doubt of that after reading this novel, it is laid to rest in the Brothers Karamazov, whose likewise tragic denouement yet ends on a note more obviously reflective of Dostoevsky's ultimate optimism.

Crime and Punishment, a psychological crime story, showed Dostoevsky's incredible genius for "writing" the inside of the human mind. Brothers Karamozov was a morality tale that laid out, on a grand scale, yet in great detail, the most essential questions of good and evil, id and ego, life and after-life. For me, The Idiot did what both of these other great novels did, but was the most captivating of the three, because it was so human, intimate and real in its characters' discourse, actions and exposition. It was much less overt than the Brothers Karamazov, and less psychologically analytical than Crime and Punishment. But of the three, the timeless characters of "The Idiot" last most indelibly in the mind.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's classic novel "The Idiot" centers around the main character, Prince Lev Nikolaievich Myshkin. Spending 3 years in a Swiss sanitorium for "idiocy," Prince Myshkin comes back to Russia because of a "longing in his heart for his fatherland". It doesn't take long for Myshkin to meet the dark and obsessive Parfyon Semyonovich Rogozhin and Lebedev, two main characters in the story.

The book is mostly centered around various planned marriages and relationships. As such, it is not a "gripping" read in the sense of suspense and thrill. It is a novel at the top of Russian style, that is a novel of ideas.

It is a moving story about the inability of society to accept someone purely based upon who they are. Prince Myshkin is a simpleton; he is honest and kind-hearted who gives his heart to anyone who would take it. He is purity embodied. However, the society with which Myshkin finds himself in contact with are vain, shallow, and greedy people who exploit others for personal profit.

All in all, this book is worth 5 stars based on the philosophical implications alone. Definitely worth a read.

I first read this book when I was begining my teenage experiences. Then I got another copy and read it again recently. I am amazed at the lasting influence this book can produce on an impressionable mind.

It seems Dostoyevski wanted to recreate a modern literary Christ and and place him in his contemporary Russia and expose the ridiculousness that he felt was blighting his beloved Russia. For this purpose he created a microcosm of Russia of latter part of nineteenth century in his book with characters from all social classes with varying levels of intellegence. This recreation it self would make any lesser book a classic. But this is not all. He places a Christ figure into this turmoil and allow us to observe the mental, emotional and overt social respose it produces.

This book can make an impressionable teenager to embark on a search for Natasyas to rescue and psycho-analyse the strangers he meets on streets to understand their problems and offer them sympathy and help all because he feels Myshkin deserved better in the modern world he tried to help. A must read for anyone interested in assesing the power of writing to change lives.

Having previously read my first Dostoevsky (Crime and Punishment) I was literally chomping at the bit to start reading something else of his. I am not altogether sure as to why I found The Idiot to be the most appealing, it probably wasn't the synopsis, because I, in my ignorance, thought I was buying "The Possessed". I realized this as I pulled away from the book store, but didn't worry about it. Dostoevsky is Dostoevsky, right? Well, sort of. I was shocked when I did not find the anti-hero I expected, but Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin, a pure and beautiful soul who I loved from the start. It was hard not to cheer for him throughout the course of the novel, and to feel his pain at the corrupt and confusing society that surrounded him. He is torn apart by his first love for the intriguing Nastasya Filippovna, and then later Aglaia Ivanovna, equally intriguing.

I'll be the first to admit that though I loved this book I struggled through certain portions of it, namely nearly every scene Lebedev is involved in, and Ippolit's letter. The book has a very 'meandering' quality to it, and you get the feeling at times that Dostoevsky didn't have the slightest clue how he would finish it, and so stalled for time in certain areas. This didn't really diminish the book's quality, it simply made it harder to follow. Also, towards the end it seems as if Dostoevsky finally knows, and he finally hurries off.

But, there is, perhaps, some of the greatest writing ever put on paper within these pages. Scenes such as Prince Myshkin's oratory on capital punishment, the party at Nastasya Fillippovna's, Prince Myshkin in the house of Rogozhin, and the most chilling scene in Rogozhin's bedroom. The beauty, terror, and despair in these scenes are so genuine that it's impossible not to be swept into Dostoevsky's world. So, would I recommend it? Of course, but not to someone unaquainted with Dostoevsky. Crime and Punishment is a much better place to start. But once you're acquainted with Dostoevsky's writings dive into this book, and you'll find yourself longing to help the poor Prince Myshkin, the idiot.

I cannot believe how terrible the editing of this book is. I have tried to look past some simple grammatical errors but it really goes beyond what is acceptable. Many of the words are repeatedly misspelled, as if the editor clicked "replace all" on the word "left" and inserted "Lyovt." I am just about finished reading this edition and several sentences appear to be missing and again replaced by the @ symbol. I appreciate that the copy was cheap but give me a break. You are doing an injustice to an author that was, in my opinion, the greatest author ever.

I do not wish to have this rating reflect on the work and beauty of the writing in "The Idiot." Dostoyevsky is a master novelist and I have never finished one of his books feeling as if I wasted my time. I highly recommend any translations by Pevear and Volokhonsky as they have become the preeminent translators of Russian literature.

Dostoievsky is a great author, his books are fully intriguing and his characters represent many religious dilemmas. He's always presenting the anguish of moral conflicts. But no book achieves to represent the dicothomy of christian values as The Idiot does.

The main character is every christian virtue as viewed by the bizantine church on Dostoievsky's time represented and exaggerated. This makes him unsuferable, yet you cannot hate him. This book is a MUST read.

This is a long book, coming in at 500+ pages of small print. The cynical explanation for its length is that Dostoevsky was always in debt and his publishers paid him per page. Nonetheless, I have not hesitated to recommend two equally mammoth works, "Crime and Punishment" and "The Brothers K", because the time invested was well spent. Not so with this one. The basic story is about a young man, who Dostoevsky portrays as a Christ-like figure, working his way into and through the upper crusts of 19th-century Russian society. The young man's experiences illustrate Dostoevsky's central theme: the impossibility of a "good man" thriving in modern society. The usual topics of religion, nihilism, suicide, crime, and industrialization are present, along with a wide spectrum of minor characters and sub-plots. The latter aspect of the book often does not work; indeed, I was not surprised to learn that the novel was written as a serial and Dostoevsky never had a coherent vision for the whole. Several passages drift from the main storyline and are never returned to the center. Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors and I enjoy the challenge mastery of his writing requires, but the time and energy needed to fully appreciate this book are probably not worth it.

dostoyevsky tried to write about the good everyman and how he could not survive in russia in the late 1800's. in todays world he would not even last as long as myshkin did.
but he was disappointed in this book. he was probably too self critical, because the book is a very interesting read. this is so eventhough there is very little action and mostly storytelling and dialog.
in my opinion, where he misses the point, is in the selction of the main storyline. although good is interesting, the dark side is always better. the best characters in this novel are roghozin and natassya philipovna. roghozin appears early and periodically throughout the novel, but is always a presence with his eyes in the crowd. he is the dark side of myshkin.
natassya appears only in the 1st part and the last. i would have prefered if the book focused on these 2 characters and their relationship rather than the ones they did. what drove these people would be much more interesting than myshkin's reaction to them.
to dostoyevski fans this is a must read. to lovers of russian literature it is highly recommended.

This is one of the most readable classics, especially amongst the great Russians. The prince is a supremely sympathetic creation; his trials are made suspenseful by his endearing nature. At points the novel edges towards melodrama but its fundamental truths regarding passion and compassion raise it to a higher level of fiction. Themes of money, corruption, and society are woven seamlessly together into a compelling read. As with Pevear/Volokhonsky's Anna Karenina, the translation is well-suited for modern readers.

Though its a complex story it's so engaging. The portrait of an epileptic like Dostoyevsky is original and objective enough that it's a character study outside of the author's personal self-interest. Like most of Dostoyevsky characters his main character is quite unusual and the portrayal is complete.

This book is a delightful read if you can last through it. Similar to a work out you must put a lot of effort to get results. The characters are delightful, and delightfully terrible depending on the character. The social interaction of 19th century Russia is exposed wonderfully in this book. The way people act, their cold secret desires, their quest for wealth and respect are all illustrated vividly.

Myshkin is a great man who is thrown into what we could today call "the real world". His kindness and polite behavior makes others think he is an idiot. I find this situation to be analogous to today's world. How often are we suspicious of people who are kind? How often are we conniving like Nastasya? I'm sure people have changed since the 19th century; however I am also sure they stayed the same. "The Idiot" is a vivid almost intoxicating portrayal of humanity with both its flaws and virtues. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who can last through the entire text. Also you may consider the Barnes and Noble classics edition which offers content that analyzes Dostoevsky's state of mind and motivations for writing certain passages in the novel.

Being familiar with the Russian language and owning the McDuff tranlation(Penguin Classic) I can automatically correct the misspelling of names but first time readers should give this a pass or at least buy the Mcduff version, better still; don't know if Pevear translated it but if e did go with that one and compare as you read. From a Prince mistaken for a Rogozhin.

I had read Crime and Punishment when I was a teen, but when I had to read The Idiot for college (I am a Lit Major) I got scared by the lengh. In school you have to read A LOT, but I had faith because of the previous work I read have from this author.
I would recommend this book a million times. Yes, it's long but it's so fast to read, entertaining, interesting and funny! Didn't you laugh at times? I did! The dialogues are awake and witty, the characters have strength of their own and the story hooks you like no other.

I am a Lit major but yet can't seem to make long reviews, I am just too concise. Read it! Anyone can read it and enjoy it! It's a must must must!!

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.

Many critics have oddly tried to cast The Idiot as a thinly veiled autobiographical piece due to the fact that Dostoevsky, himself, suffered from epilepsy, but how this fact- that Myshkin is Dostoevsky- even were it true, helps the books be understood better, is never clarified. Another of the related main ideas that many critics wrongly point out in this novel is how Prince Myshkin is also seen as a de facto Jesus Christ-like stand in, but this can only be posited by a severe misinterpretation of the Christ myth. Yes, Myshkin is a devout Christian believer- in the old non-Born Again sense, and he seems preternaturally good, but he also subtly manipulates others, perhaps for their own good, if we accept the omniscient narrator's version of the tale's events, yet that very fact runs counter to the Christian beliefs of Jesus Christ as a totally selfless being, as do a number of other facts about Myshkin in the book. As with those critics that rather simplistically see Crime And Punishment as a great pro-Christian document, those who see Myshkin as a Christ-like figure see only those qualities in the character that fit their mold, and conveniently ignore those that do not fit. This is because too often the artist is conflated with his aistic creation. Yet, if as some believe, that Myshkin is also patterned after Dostoevsky, `evidenced' by when Myshkin, at a party, late in the novel, embarrasses the Epanchins when he goes on and on with a very reactionary screed on religion that many critics insist is really Dostoevsky's own pontifications mouthed by his fictive surrogate, does this not also logically mean that Dostoevsky must be claiming himself a Christ-like figure, perhaps because, like a god, an artist is a creator of worlds? You can obviously see how quickly such facile and unsupported critical notions lead to silliness.

Also, this notion is vitiated by the fact that other non-major characters often speak with a dramatic and logical force equal to Myshkin's, and often in opposition to his views, yet they are somehow not claimed to be Dostoevskian surrogates. As example, at one of the many parties in the novel, a minor character rails that social liberalism is contrary to Russians norms, that a liberal cannot be a Russian, and vice-versa. He says that liberalism is a foreign scourge from the decadent Western European nations, and that social liberalism attacks the very foundations of the Russian social system. This plea for an almost Fascist state is uttered with quite the same conviction as Myshkin's devoutly held religious beliefs, but no critics try to conflate the sentiments that character expresses with those held by Dostoevsky. Why? Merely because it's all said by a minor character, and myopic critics cannot believe that a held truth can be uttered in a sly fashion, in an offhanded way? I am not arguing for the proposition that those sentiments were Dostoevsky's own, but if I were, they would have the same minimal heft as those who argue that Myshkin's every ideal is a Dostoevskian one, even as the author claimed he wanted to create a wholly decent and guileless character, something one might safely assume Dostoevsky never posited himself as being, lest he'd never be able to be a real artist. Subtlety, it seems, eludes most critical interpretations of art.

Another flaw that haunts the book, and goes hand in hand with the baroqueness of the dialogue, is the length of the book, and, again, as in Crime And Punishment, the dreadful use of an anticlimactic epilogue- chapter twelve of the fourth section, although only one is used in this book. Simply dismissing this as `the style' relieves no modern reader of the burden of wading through unwieldy descriptions and pointless digressions woven merely to show how deeply sketched the background world the main narratives play out against is. Another thing that tests the patience of a modern reader is for Dostoevsky to never merely refer to a character by a Christian name or surname, but by both, often with one or more middle names tossed into the mix, yet then, in the next paragraph, sentence, or breath have that person referred to by a mere nickname, making it seem as if another character has entered the scene, when they have not.

As for the title, The Idiot? I'm surprised that more critical attention has not centered on the question as to whom the title actually refers to. Of course, on the surface level, it refers to Prince Myshkin, but it could also refer to Rogozhin, who is reduced to murderous insanity, or to the narcissistic vanity of Aglaia, or the masochism of Anastassya. In all of Dostoevsky's works I've read thus far, Myshkin is easily the most well-rounded, authentically detailed, and `sane' major character the writer created, so this makes the question of the title's true referent all the more pertinent, and perplexing in its lack of critical discussion. Another avenue of thought for the title's meaning could be that it does principally refer to Myshkin, but not for the obvious reasons, but because we realize that he is intelligent enough to recognize the flaws that the other characters mock and tease him of, yet chooses to do nothing to improve his lot. Certainly, this is `idiotic', in the common vernacular, and as idiotic as any of the other characters' actions.

Yet, despite its flaws, The Idiot is leagues above what passes for literature these days. If only there were not so many Cliffs Notes type sites that contribute to the dumbing down and homogenization of thought about classic novels, many people, especially those younger people in college, would not so easily regurgitate the same misperceptions about such works that are easily disproved simply by reading the work. Imagine that, getting the essence of a book by actually reading it. Perhaps I, and my essays, can start a trend?

Great book from an existentialist genius. In my opinion, this is one of the more underrated books out there. It gets overshadowed by crime and punishment. I read somewhere that Dostoyevsky tried to create the perfect character with this book. I think he succeeded.

My favorite Dostoyevsky book. What does it look like when an authentic Christian interacts with the wealthy upper class? How can he change their hearts? This book doesn't give any easy answers, but forces you to think for yourself.

fyi I haven't read this translation yet

Dostoevsky disappointed me. After Crime and Punishment, I had expected another book that was deep, almost profound, and genuine in its portrayal of humanity and generally a great read - what we'd expect of an author as great as Dostoevsky. What I found instead sounded like the ramblings of someone uncertain of what he wanted to say.

Was this going to be a book about religion, about high society in Russia, about love? About all three? What was Dostoevsky trying to say? Perhaps I was disappointed because the book didn't seem `concentrated', there were so many unnecessary little incidents that distracted from the main storyline (if there was one), that the book lost its thrust.

But I mustn't dissuade you from reading this book. Compared to many other works of fiction, this would be a masterpiece. I must warn you however that if you have heard about Dostoevsky and want to see why there is such a fuss made over him, read something like Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov rather than this work.

Dostoyevsky is one of my very favourite writers, but I must admit this novel was a bit disappointing to me. And this, despite some really interesting moments. I wouldn't say it's a bad novel at all, I'll just point out a few things that may make one rather reluctant to compare this novel to other novels of the same author.

For instance, the plot takes hundreds of pages, often to go nowhere at all. My edition, a new translation dating from 2004, is 720 pages long. And often, there are elements, subplots, and other things that just lead to nothing; which can be interesting in itself; Dostoyevsky, a post modern writer from the 19th Century? Not exactly.

In fact, poor Dostoyevsky had to write very quickly and publish as he went, in order to survive and have food... So the plot's many weirdities totally make sense in the light of this. Yet, 720 pages of intricate plotting that seem to go nowhere and for unknown reasons is rather.... post-modern, and not necessarily in the best meaning.

I like the characeter of the "idiot", even though I thought this was going to be pushed somewhat more, and somewhat differently. I think the main weakness of this novel is that it's not "tight". I mean, there are many subplots, not necessarily connected, and no big plot; which again is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it makes one feel a bit lost in space as to what goes on. Things go on, yes, but why? That's what I mean by "there is no real plot".

This is a classic Russian novel. Great book, but it took me like forever to read. I had a bit of difficulty keeping track of which characters were which, due to the Russian names and the fact that most of the characters are also known by a nickname. I'm sure that Russian people know that "Ganya" is a nickname for "Gavril", just like Americans know that "Dick" is a nickname for "Richard". But I'm not Russian. Anyway, it's a classic book and it's worth the effort to read it.

This was the second of Dostoevsky's works which I had read, the first being The Brothers Karamazov. I have now read most of his novels and short stories and I have come appreciate The Idoit even more. Dostoevsky does a masterful job in creating a character in which the nature of Christ is made manifest within the culture of his day, but his character is not too holy. The humanity of Myshkin is what draws the reader to him. At points, the reader wants to jump into the story and speak on Prince Myshkin's defence and rescue him from the ignorance of his society, but the events must remain as they are, for there is no other way in which this story can end. It leaves the reader having to answer personal questions about how life should be live and how one should relate with others, even those who mean ill. As a slight caution, there are many cultural allusions which can be lost upon a modern reader, but the notes of Pevear and Volokhonsky are very helpful. They also, in my opinion, they provide the best modern translations of Dostoevsky's work.

I first discovered Dostoyevsky a few months ago when in Iraq when I found "Crime and Punishment" in a box of books donated to troops. I found CAP to be an astoundingly good book and began to look for more Russian literature.

I decided on "The Idiot" because it was another one of Dostoyevsky's most famous works but not quite as daunting as "The Brothers Karamazov."

Now that I've finished the book, my verdict seems to be in line with what a lot of other peopole are saying--it's good, but not quite a great as Crime and Punishment.

That being said, "The Idiot" is a very different sort of a book. It is not a fast-paced literary thriller but a rather slow-moving tragic drama. The main character, Prince Myshkin, is a very honest and compassionate man who sometimes has stunning insights into human affairs. However, because of his inability to see evil in others, his simple mannerisms, and his mental illness, others see him as an idiot.

The book describes Prince Myshkin's love affairs with two women who are ultimately unattainable. Along the way, Dostoyevsky creates a very memorable and admirable character.

This one takes a bit of patience, particularly when trying to keep track of all the Russian names and relations of the minor characters. But if you stick with it, you'll come away with an understanding of the sad fact that good people don't always get their just desserts.

Dostoevsky's, The Idiot, revolves around the main character Prince Myshkin who is a man of profound goodness. However, the other characters in the novel are quite the opposite; they connive, plot, and claw for worldly things such as money, profitable marriages, and improving their social status. Myshkin's inability to play the social game along with them and his ingenuous nature leads to his own downfall as well as the self destruction of the other characters in the novel which tailspins into a brilliant finale. Also, I was very pleased to see that the battle between intellectualism and spiritualism played out in this novel like it does in his other works. The Idiot certainly brings you further into Dostoevsky's world and enlightens you with his genius so it is well worth reading.

I never believed that television, particularly MTV, was making us less impatient as readers, but after reading a couple of reviews lamenting that little happens plotwise, I am beginning to change my mind. This books doesn't have fireworks or explosions, but the relationships between characters are simply riveting. I turn the page eagerly waiting to see what will transpire next between Natasya and the Prince, betweem Roghozin and Natasya, between Aglaya and the Prince, between Roghozin and the Prince, and so on. This is a brilliant character study, but it also has terrific plot. If you don't like this, then you probably dislike plays, because that is what this reads like--actors performing on simple but fully realized stage sets. This is definitely not Dostoevsky's best novel, but it far surpasses most other novels being published today. Give it a try. If you love Russian novels, you will certainly enjoy this.

I really like Dostoyevsky, but I consider 'The Idiot' a novel that sometimes gets too boring. It is magnificent the way Dostoyevsky portraits the Russian situation at the time, and Mishkin is really an interesting character, similar to my mind to Aliosha Karamazov. However, the book is, I think, unnecessarily enlarged, and gets stmes a bit dense and even boring. Maybe the next time i will like it best. Now I prefer 'Crime & Punishment' or 'The Brothers Karamazov', actually.

If you love to read and you haven't read this yet, I don't know what the heck you're waiting for. This is one of my favorite books. Yes there are a lot of subplots and long monologs, but that is part of the beauty of it. At one point in the book he talks about a man who was sentenced to death and then pardoned at the last minute and what went through his head, which actually happened to Dostoevsky. Things like this may not really advance the plot, but they are interesting in and of themselves and help develope the charectors.

Not my favorite of Dostoevsky's but that may be because it even more than others ends differently than I desired. Once again I was amazed by his use of seemingly psychotic characters that in fact strike me as being incredibly accurate depictions of common persons. This author and this book move me more than any other. Everyone should have a copy.

The Idiot is a great novel that could take a lifetime to fully explore. It embodies Dostoievsky's struggle to find humanity and "heart" in people in the face of our "civilized" rationalism. The characters in this novel could come from modern characters in our own lives. We all sacrifice to some degree our hearts in favour of our heads. Prince Myshkin's passion for life, truth, and love are a positive example to us all. The only complaint I have about this book is the title. Does this word (Idiot) have a subtley different meaning in Russian? It does not do justice to anybody's interpretation of Myshkin . I believe that anybody who has read this book , like anyone who comes in contact with a person like Myshkin, will be better for it.

this is a truly harrowing and tragic tale of sick love. love that corrupts and ruins and drives men insane. nastasia filipovna is tormented soul that can only love chirst. Her 'christ' is the holy fool myshkin. this is an intellectual work, not for those who think a book is just a pass time or for those who dont take books seriously in general. read this with a serious mindset and forget american popular culture. russia is not america, it never has been it never will be. The Idiot is an novel about a strange land told in a way only dostoyevsky could tell it. I have read all his works and I think only the Devils and Brothers Karamazov equal it in terms of its depth and errie looked at the twisted souls of man. its the greatest....

dostoyvsky is clearly, the most powerful and the most challenging novelist in the history. he sweeps the language and metaphor into a dangerous realm. readers could go insane reading this book, its so terrifyingly involving. myshkin is argued as jesus himself, with his lamblike innocence and the arrogance that comes with it. well, i found so mnay layers and so many meanings in the narrative, that i think only a great text could produce such range of emotions and thoughts. the text argues, fights, weeps, sulks, dreams and goes mad with you.

I ordered this book based on my desire for a Russian novel and the positive reviews here. I am an avid reader and literature lover, but I regard this as perhaps the worst, most interminable novel I have EVER read. I feel as though I've been Fyodor-boarded.

This is an amazing work. I know The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment are considered his masterpieces, but on an emotional level this book is unmatched in what it evokes in the reader: you feel great joy at times, and at others it almost tears one's heart out.

This is the first Russia novel that I have read, and must say that it want be the last. What can I say about this good novel, that hasn't already been said. It's a shame that being real kind-hearted is sometime look on as being crazy, or strange. A great book, that I am glad that I took a chance on reading.

Dostoevsky's depection of the "positively good man" is much more fascinating, philosophically, than Crime and Punishment, but is also significantly harder to read. I suggest C&P instead, or the Brothers Karamazov if you have the time.