The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Welcome to Guti’s Notes!
In this post I would like to comment and provide my “review” on a recently read book which became one of my all time favorites, The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky. For those of you interested in reading the book, this post will be split into 2 major sections with the first one talking about the book in general terms without giving spoilers and the second one going more in depth on a few topics. As a side note, it was read in brazilian portuguese, so there might be a few names not translated accordingly to english as mainly all of them had a few differences in between the languages as seen so far.
The first thing to mention is that this is my 3rd Dostoevsky book, previously I have read Poor People, Crime & Punishment and another one with 2 short stories from the author. By far The Idiot was the easiest one to read and the most entertaining one. It might have been that the mood was not great while reading Crime & Punishment, but this seemed way easier to read.
As always, if you enjoy the content hit the subscribe or like button and if you have any questions/comments/suggestions let me know below!
PART 1: The Not So Idiot
Have you ever met someone that was incredibly naive and was only capable of seen and doing the good? This might come as a quick yes from most people, but the fact is that this should not be the case at all here. We are talking about someone who is incapable of having selfish and evil thoughts and only the most pure and good feelings and intentions. This is the history of prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin also known as “The Idiot” due to his epilepsy, which makes everyone assume that he severely lacks intelligence and the ability to communicate and understand. Lev Nikolayevich is constructed as one of the best characters ever created by Dostoevsky, both in terms of the depth and creation of the character himself as well as being the best in terms of doing the good just for the sake of goodness. The main character is introduced into several events and keeps on surprising everyone who initially believes him to be an Idiot. The book starts with the prince returning to Russia from Switzerland after four years treating his epileptic condition. As soon as the prince gets closer to Saint Petersburg he already encounters a few characters that will accompany him throught the entire novel. Within the first ~150 pages, which encompasses only his first day in the city, the prince already meets almost all main characters. These are: Rogozhin who just inherited big wealth, Lébedyev which on my view becomes one of the prince’s best friends, the astonishing Nastasya Filippovna, the radiantly beautiful Agláya Ivánovna and her mother Lizavéta Prokófyevna which again to my eyes acts as a protector/mother on a few cases to the prince.
After talking with Rogozhin and Lébedyev on the train heading to Saint Petersbourg, the prince heads to the Epanchín’s office/house to reach the only distant relative left from the Myshkin lineage, Lizavéta Prokófyevna. There he meets General Iván Fyódorovich Epanchín as well as one of the most despicable persons in the book, Gánya Ardaliónovich, who works for Iván. At the office, the prince gets completely hypnotized by the portrait of Nastasya Filippovna and after talking to the General he is invited to his house to meet Lizavéta and their 3 daughters (Alexándra, the eldest daughter; Adelaída, the second and Agláya, the youngest of the Epanchín’s daughters). Later in that same night, the prince goes to a party at Nastasya’s house (from the portrait he saw earlier that day) and the episodes at the party leads our hero to the events pertaining to the rest of the story.
Additional General Comments on the Book and the Plot:
On my reading, one of the most fascinating notions in the book is that people always begin thinking that the prince in the most absolute Idiot and then get shocked after he expresses a good line of thought or a well constructed opinion. Shortly after that they again come to treat him as an Idiot. The prince does not generally talks a lot but when asked about a few topics provide pretty simple and clever opinions. One of the early people that gets on the prince side is Lizavéta, which makes fun of her daughters stating that they were treating the prince as an Idiot but in fact he made themselves look like idiots by magnificantly narrating and providing his honest opinions.
Another idea that got my attention is that you come to like Lev Nikolayevich so much that I often found myself cheering for everything to go well in his life (which is not usually the way with Dostoevsky novels). From people treating him badly to those showing him compassion, you go on through the book wanting them to experience karma according to their actions towards the main character.
Other point that made me see this book as different from the remaining ones from Dostoevsky is that the prince, throught the whole book appears as someone joyful and trully happy in his life. Several characters are going through alcoholism, poverty, sadness and the prince experiences all of that surrounding him but always keeping a cheerful expression.
The main idea to me is that indeed, after several scenes in the novel, Lev Nikolayevich ended up appearing to me as an Idiot. He is extremely naive, always apologize for everything even though he should not do so and he eventually tries to get a long with several characters that made extremely bad actions towards him. Also, sometimes there are actions that the prince takes with the most wholesome intentions that seem an insult and disrespect to others on my view, like his whole relationship with Nastasya Filippovna. Although these can be seen as the purest form of naivity and kindness, my mind cannot bear that someone sane would behave like this. If Dr. House from the TV show would treat our hero in this story, his “idiocy” could not be seen as something natural and would be treated as a symptomn.
A few other themes that pertain the whole novel are: death and the death penalty; innocence and guilt; atheism and christianity; russian patriotism and the loss of a true russian originality; distinctions between eccentric and common people & money and its relation to society. Another last point to be made is that Don Quixote greatly inspired Dostoevsky to create the prince Lev Nikolayevich and several references to the “poor knight” are made throught the book, specially from Agláya talking about the prince.
PART 2: A Few Scenes, Topics and Dialogs to Mention (spoiler alert)
This section contains a few scenes and discussions which the characters had and that I would like to mention and talk a little bit more about. Since these contain spoilers to the novel I have separated it from the rest. To me this is the best part about the book, so if you do not intend to read it or do not care about spoilers, please, keep on accompanying us for the rest of the post.
There are 3 main topics on the book which I would like to talk here, these are: The prince’s view on religion & death; the discussion on ordinary and eccentric people and how even though the prince has always the best intentions and is extremely pure, his whole idea and actions with Nastasya Filippovna are strange or insulting to me and that he in fact is an Idiot by always forgiving and wanting to be with people who offended him.
Religion & Death
After exiting his train from Switzerland to Saint Petersburg, the prince goes immediatelly to Iván Epanchin office/house and there before meeting with the general, Lev has his first encounter with Gánya where they ended up talking about the death sentence and execution by the guillotine in France. The Prince mentions what should be going through a man’s mind at the moment:
”Imagine what must have been going on in that man's mind at such a moment; what dreadful convulsions his whole spirit must have endured; it is an outrage on the soul that's what it is. Because it is said 'thou shalt not kill,' is he to be killed because he murdered some one else? No, it is not right, it's an impossible theory. I assure you, I saw the sight a month ago and it's dancing before my eyes to this moment. I dream of it, often.”
Gánya expresses the common thought that:
“Well, at all events it is a good thing that there's no pain when the poor fellow's head flies off," he remarked.
The prince then explains his thoughts on the death penalty and execution being the most dreadful anguish in the world, stating at the same time that this opinion was not manifested by him:
"Do you know, though," cried the prince warmly, "you made that remark now, and everyone says the same thing, and the machine is designed with the purpose of avoiding pain, this guillotine I mean; but a thought came into my head then: what if it be a bad plan after all? You may laugh at my idea, perhaps--but I could not help its occurring to me all the same. Now with the rack and tortures and so on--you suffer terrible pain of course; but then your torture is bodily pain only (although no doubt you have plenty of that) until you die. But HERE I should imagine the most terrible part of the whole punishment is, not the bodily pain at all--but the certain knowledge that in an hour,--then in ten minutes, then in half a minute, then now--this very INSTANT--your soul must quit your body and that you will no longer be a man-- and that this is certain, CERTAIN! That's the point--the certainty of it. Just that instant when you place your head on the block and hear the iron grate over your head--then--that quarter of a second is the most awful of all.
"This is not my own fantastical opinion--many people have thought the same; but I feel it so deeply that I'll tell you what I think. I believe that to execute a man for murder is to punish him immeasurably more dreadfully than is equivalent to his crime. A murder by sentence is far more dreadful than a murder committed by a criminal. The man who is attacked by robbers at night, in a dark wood, or anywhere, undoubtedly hopes and hopes that he may yet escape until the very moment of his death. There are plenty of instances of a man running away, or imploring for mercy--at all events hoping on in some degree--even after his throat was cut. But in the case of an execution, that last hope--having which it is so immeasurably less dreadful to die,--is taken away from the wretch and CERTAINTY substituted in its place! There is his sentence, and with it that terrible certainty that he cannot possibly escape death--which, I consider, must be the most dreadful anguish in the world. You may place a soldier before a cannon's mouth in battle, and fire upon him--and he will still hope. But read to that same soldier his death-sentence, and he will either go mad or burst into tears. Who dares to say that any man can suffer this without going mad? No, no! it is an abuse, a shame, it is unnecessary--why should such a thing exist?”
This is not an exceptionally different thought by any means, but at the time the book was written, this appears as quite a different approach than what Gánya was mentioning about mercy in not providing the criminal with much suffering. Although there is no physical pain, the certainty of death must have a very impactful effect on a person.
On faith & religion, Lev Nikolayevich is asked by Rogózhin if he believes in God. To that the prince replies with the story of a woman he met once:
"Well, I went homewards, and near the hotel I came across a poor woman, carrying a child--a baby of some six weeks old. The mother was quite a girl herself. The baby was smiling up at her, for the first time in its life, just at that moment; and while I watched the woman she suddenly crossed herself, oh, so devoutly! 'What is it, my good woman I asked her. (I was never but asking questions then!) Exactly as is a mother's joy when her baby smiles for the first time into her eyes, so is God's joy when one of His children turns and prays to Him for the first time, with all his heart!' This is what that poor woman said to me, almost word for word; and such a deep, refined, truly religious thought it was--a thought in which the whole essence of Christianity was expressed in one flash” […] "Listen, Parfen; you put a question to me just now. This is my reply. The essence of religious feeling has nothing to do with reason, or atheism, or crime, or acts of any kind--it has nothing to do with these things--and never had. There is something besides all this, something which the arguments of the atheists can never touch. But the principal thing, and the conclusion of my argument, is that this is most clearly seen in the heart of a Russian. This is a conviction which I have gained while I have been in this Russia of ours.”
Here I believe the “genius” of the prince comes to reality as he is able to express a complicated matter in an extremely simple way and provide his opinion without the need to set several rules and boundaries.
Common & Eccentric Personalities
Dostoevsky starts part 4 of the novel discussing that writers cannot fill a whole book only narrating and including uncommon and eccentric characters. There must be space for ordinary personalities. With that he goes further explaining that we have 2 types of common people. The first ones are the limited common people which are way more happier and the second ones which are usually way smarter and miserable.
Dostoevsky mentions that:
In fact, there is nothing more deplorable than, for example, being rich, of a good family, of good looks, of regular education, not foolish, even good, and at the same time having no talent, no peculiarities, even no oddities, no idea of hiw own, to be strictly “like everyone else”. Having wealth, but not of the Rothschild type; of an honest family, but never been distinguished for anything, good appearance, but not very expressive; good instruction, but does not know what to use it for; With intelligence, but no ideas of its own; has a heart, but without magnamity.1
To a commonplace man of limited intellect, for instance, nothing is simpler than to imagine himself an original character, and to revel in that belief without the slightest misgiving.
Many of our young women have thought fit to cut their hair short, put on blue spectacles, and call themselves Nihilists. By doing this they have been able to persuade themselves, without further trouble, that they have acquired new convictions of their own. Some men have but felt some little qualm of kindness towards their fellow-men, and the fact has been quite enough to persuade them that they stand alone in the van of enlightenment and that no one has such humanitarian feelings as they. Others have but to read an idea of somebody else's, and they can immediately assimilate it and believe that it was a child of their own brain. The "impudence of ignorance," if I may use the expression, is developed to a wonderful extent in such cases;--unlikely as it appears, it is met with at every turn.
Our friend, Gania, belonged to the other class--to the "much cleverer" persons, though he was from head to foot permeated and saturated with the longing to be original. This class, as I have said above, is far less happy. For the "clever commonplace" person, 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; and this doubt sometimes brings a clever man to despair. (As a rule, however, nothing tragic happens;--his liver becomes a little damaged in the course of time, nothing more serious. Such men do not give up their aspirations after originality without a severe struggle,--and there have been men who, though good fellows in themselves, and even benefactors to humanity, have sunk to the level of base criminals for the sake of originality.
Gania was a beginner, as it were, upon this road. A deep and unchangeable consciousness of his own lack of talent, combined with a vast longing to be able to persuade himself that he was original, had rankled in his heart, even from childhood.
He seemed to have been born with overwrought nerves, and in his passionate desire to excel, he was often led to the brink of some rash step; and yet, having resolved upon such a step, when the moment arrived, he invariably proved too sensible to take it. He was ready, in the same way, to do a base action in order to obtain his wished-for object; and yet, when the moment came to do it, he found that he was too honest for any great baseness.
I dont have many additional comments to point our here. Dostoevsky lays the complete idea in the book and again not a new principle at all. Just adding to this idea I would like to quote the slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:
This is my fear, as if I am nothing who pretends all the time to be somebody and has to be hyperactive all the time... just to fascinate people enough so that they don't notice that there is nothing.
Maybe here there might be something about our world and the content creating economy and society nowadays. People are required to constantly create, communicate and always be online, which is hyperactiveness, just to fascinate and keep on entertaining everyone, when in fact 99% of the content is nothing. There is constant creation all the time just to mask the fact that indeed there is nothing of real meaning at all being done there. Maybe this is also a symptomn and both cause of general anxiety these days. It seems that if people stop for one second they will fall into nothingness, but it is ok for them to always do something lacking real meaning just to mask that there is nothing. This also enables the “coaching mindset” of not wasting a single minute doing nothing, always be evolving, creating and learning. Of course again, falsely evolving, falsely creating and falsely learning, just to mask the fact that deep into that there is nothing.
The Not So Idiot is In Fact an Idiot
This last part won’t have quotations and will be shorter as I am starting to get lazy and the post is getting really long :)
Come on! It hasn't really sunk in to me yet that Rogozhin tried to kill the prince Lev and our hero was still trying to be friends with him. Someone literally tried to assassinate him and left him soaked in blood in the middle of an epileptic attack and the prince keeps on trying to explain himself and reach his “friend”. I would waste no time in calling him an Idiot by doing that.
Another part that really baffles me is his whole idea of proposing to marry Nastasya Filippovna just because he feels pity for her due to the fact that she had a difficult past and is now seen in the russian society as a woman not fit for marriage. That seems like such a shitty reason for asking someone to marry! You should choose to do that with someone because you want it and love the person. Even if you heart gets destroyed by the fact that society sees her that way now and by how bad her past was, you are being absolutely disrespectful to Nastasya by proposing to her just to make a “great and honorable act of goodness”. You can help someone in many ways, but marrying them just because you feel pity is one of the worst reasons ever.
If you made it this far, thanks for taking sometime of your day to read my empty content! If you feel like it hit any of the buttons below to show some support to the newsletter. If you have different views on the book leave a comment below!
I am still trying to figure it out if the next post is going to be about my portfolio or some other topic. If you have suggestions let me know.
Have a great week!
I had to translate this quote from portuguese as the english one’s I discovered seemed way different than what I read in portuguese. I have absolutely no idea which one is more resembling to the russian version.