Even couched in terms of a 150 year old book translated from a foreign language, I found this book a real struggle to get though. Rambling, incoherent dialog where the details were often lost in a haze of circumlocution. Patronymic references to every character making it harder to keep track of who was who.

There were a number of passages I genuinely enjoyed but overall it was hard work to read. In hindsight, my first Dostoyevsky should have been The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment which are apparently some of his less polarising and more approachable works. ( )

Very good book. One of my favorites by Dostoevsky so far. I am excited to read what is to come ( )

Only 3 stars? The low mark pains me, since I gave 5 stars to "Crime and Punishment" and "The Brothers Karamazov." So I plunged into this 26-hour audiobook with patience and hope.

The narrator, Norman Dietz, was excellent and such a pleasure to listen to. According to his website, he's a professional reader with quite a talent for voices and accents. However, he may read a bit too slow on this one, as the story often dragged and my attention drifted elsewhere. Not a problem, since the story itself was pretty slow, so I could always delve back in without missing too much.

Until some library grinch put a hold on the book when I was at 80%. In my rush to finish, I increased the reading speed to 1.5x. It worked beautifully! I was still able to follow the reading, and actually focused better since it didn't drag as much. I should have increased the speed at the beginning! Instead of 26 hours, it would have taken 17. ( )

Dostoevsky described Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin as a 'positively beautiful man' and he succeeds in making this protagonist innocent and beautiful without being too simple or boring. He is quite a contrast to Raskolnikov, but reminded me of Alyosha Karamazov in some ways. But he's less of a holy fool and more of an idiot, which is the word constantly used to bring down Prince Myshkin, who seems to be undeserving of the harsh title. Sure he's awkward and epileptic, but he's quite articulate and has lots on his mind (ie. his hilarious anti-Catholic rant). Sadly, he is reduced to idiocy at the end of the novel after the shitshow involving Nastasya Filippovna, femme fatale extraordinaire. She brings down Rogozhin and the Prince- so is she crazy or just in love with her fallen woman stance? The line between sanity and craziness is quite blurry in this novel, as is the line between intelligence and idiocy. We've got both extremes in us.

As usual with Dostoevsky, this had an exciting plot and was filled with memorable characters ie. pathetic Lebedev, consumptive Ippolit, and compulsive liar General Ivolgin. I loved the Nastasya/Aglaya foil and the jealousy between them was well depicted. It's always interesting when Dostoevsky draws on his own experiences- his epilepsy and his near execution- as he discusses both within the novel. There's lots of religion too, but lots of atheism and disbelief. Some good thoughts on religion vs. rationality (spirituality doesn't fit in with reason) and on how Russian passion causes such extreme conviction in religious belief or disbelief. It's amazing how he weaves these heavy and serious subjects through the novel but still makes it so damn enjoyable to read! ( )

Нещо средно между Форест Гъмп и Гордост и предразсъдъци, Идиот е историята на (басирам се, ще се сетите след това сравнение) простичък, но добродушен и всъщност умен младеж, който за изненада на всички успява да плува в аристократичните води на Русия от 19 в. с всичките им там женитби, годежи, заговори и т.н.

Тъй като нито Форест Гъмп, нито Гордост и предразсъдъци ми харесват, Идиот също не ме впечатли - дотолкова, че не можах да го издържа до края. Има някаква граница на безкрайните описания на безмислените подробности от междусемейната история и отношения на руската аристокрация, които мога да издържа и тя е около стотната страница. Да, разбрах - най-важното нещо в живота на всички тогава е било да се оженят/омъжат, точно както в Гордост и предразсъдъци, само не ми е ясно защо трябва да говорят само за това. ( )

I tend to applaud writers who can tell an amazing story in few pages to those in need of a tome to tell a mediocre story

I read The Idiot as my quarterly 2017 classic challenge and had hoped for the experience I has this time last year while reading [b:War and Peace|656|War and Peace|Leo Tolstoy|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1413215930s/656.jpg|4912783] by Leo Tolstoy. War and Peace I really enjoyed as the plot and the characterisation was excellent and the book was so readable and interesting, while The Idiot is readable and is well written in places it does tend to be on the dry side and I found myself bored in many chapters and confused in others. While I liked the characters I felt the book and especially the first 100 pages was awkward and sluggish.

A young Man in his mid twenties by the name of Prince Myshkin returns to Moscow after spending time in a Swiss Clinic for treatment. On his return to Moscow he finds himself a stranger in a society obsessed with wealth and become involved in a love triangle. The tale is primarily a love story and and a good old fashioned tale of good versus evil.

A nice hardback edition for my bookshelf and while I don't regret reading it, it's not one for my favourites shelf. I may try [b:The Brothers Karamazov|4934|The Brothers Karamazov|Fyodor Dostoyevsky|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1427728126s/4934.jpg|3393910] as many of my friends have recommended it over this one. ( )

After I was mesmerised by the genius "Crime and Punishment", I had very high hopes for this book.Too high as the book didn't feel nearly as impactful as the other one. Don't get me wrong the book is still amazing and is worth your time. Its just that if you are expecting similar experience as you had with "Crime and Punishment" you stand to be disappointed. ( )

I never finished The Idiot, getting to the end of Book III before the extreme complexity of the plot and cast, and my inability to concentrate enough to absorb them, led me to give up and read only synopses of what happened in book IV. (The ending was unexpected.)

The Idiot is an incredibly difficult novel to follow, in comparison with the other Dostoyevsky works I have read (Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov). Especially if you don't read it all at once, possibly because you tend to get distracted by other books as I do; that makes understanding the plot even harder.

The reason it's so much more difficult is because those novels are both nominally murder dramas with very small casts, but the plot of The Idiot is purely social intrigue and its cast is enormous in comparison. Simultaneously appearing characters have similar social positions, relatively similar personalities, and even similar names. One family has daughters named Aglaya, Alexandra and Adelaida; and there are a General Epanchin and a General Ivolgin. Many characters have multiple nicknames per Russian custom, and many are related to others by blood or marriage. It's a headache.

This complicated network of characters participate in an equally complicated plot, a tangled web of relationships (social, familial, personal, financial) and interactions that often involve corruption, betrayal, and callousness. If it weren't Dostoyevsky, it might be called a soap opera. Keeping track of all the characters, their relationships, and their attitudes toward Prince Myshkin takes so much concentration that I don't feel able to study Myshkin, the protagonist, as much as I want to. (The main reason I started The Idiot in the first place is because my novel in progress has a somewhat similar character, and I hoped for inspiration.)

Although the protagonist and central figure is certainly Myshkin, the character most difficult to understand is not him, Nastasya, Rogozhin, Lebedyev or anyone else; it's Aglaia, by far. (Ganya is a distant second.) Aglaia is said to be, while not saintly like Myshkin, some sort of innocent, and certainly different and separate from the corruption and intrigue of her family and the characters they interact with. But her innocence was never clear to me, especially in light of her confused and vacillating behavior toward Myshkin. She has to be the most complex character.

The Idiot could be described as "Dostoyevsky does Henry James," really--it is a plot type and a cast James could have written. ( )

Going to read brothers Karamazov again because it was everything I like about this book, everything I relate too and everything that makes me feel deeply spiritual and religious but without everything I dont like, all of the slow and insignifigant wankery of the petersburg middle class without any real passion; maybe their are moments but nothing that ventures outside of the realm of that tiny and useless bow of society. I like the book and one day I will read it again, and on that day I will resolve to read Brothers Karamzov when I am finished.

One of my favorite books from Dostoevsky that pushed me into a new era of literature and inspiration. It helps us decide between what is best and what we want along with how we should reconcile these issues. ( )

It seems I have a yearly Dostoevsky quota now. The last three years I've ended with one of his "great" novels - next year it will be Demons, I guess. It's a shame that that book will be the last of his "major works" as I've seen them defined, because from each of the previous I feel like I've learned something essential about what it is to be alive. In contrast to the reputation that surrounds Russian literature as being dry or difficult (something I've never found to be true, and is a stereotype more based on the imposing length of Russian classics than anything actually written in the books) I've always found reading Dostoevsky to be an almost breathless experience. We swerve from one dramatic scene to another, the reality of his novels often reaching a state of near hysteria, before breaking for a brief repose before the next storm comes in. What's striking about this drama is that it is almost never fixated on the points you would imagine if you simply read the plot in abstract. Murders, attacks, and feverish escapes are all left off screen - instead we are treated to long conversations and monologues of characters pushed to the edge. The classic hallmark of a Dostoevsky character, despite their vast differences in age, class, temperament, etc. is their sensitivity. These people feel everything, the most minor incident can sink into their soul and cause the most beautiful rapture, or the darkest foreboding, or the deepest humiliation. The last feeling in particular permeates so much of his work, a kind of cosmic embarrassment - when one lives life with emotional abandon as so many of his characters do, one is constantly skirting the edge of disaster, and at a certain point it becomes impossible to avoid the worst, even if one sees it coming from miles away. His heroes, whether it be Prince Myshkin here, or Dimitri Karamazov, or Raskolnikov, all repeatedly suffer the most shameful humiliations - what makes them outrageous, tragic, and interesting, is their stubborn, incredible will power to carry on.

It seems that The Idiot revolves around how we interpret the character of Prince Myshkin. While Dostoevsky's ruffians and ne'er-do-wells are more famous, his novels also often feature this kind of character, one that could be described as too good for this world. I'm thinking of Sonya in Crime and Punishment or Alyosha in Karamazov. Before anyone gets the impression that these characters are being held up by Dostoevsky as a kind of ideal to be emulated, it's important to remember that these figures also suffer the consequences of their "goodness", which might just be another word for naivety, or as this book so explicitly puts it here, idiocy. Of course you can't spend much time poking around in the world of Russian literature without coming across the phrase "holy fool", a concept our learned editors tell us is deeply embedded in Russian culture, the idea being that certain folks are so sensitive to the power of God that it actually fucks up their brain a bit. It's telling that Myshkin is never described as such in this book, whether that's because his particular situation doesn't suit the word, or if the people around him are too blind to see him that way, I'm not fit to determine. Truly great works of art always defy easy interpretation, and I don't think there is one answer to this question. Reading about Dostoevsky The Man and what he believed can feel like a kind of red herring - what are we to make of the fact that Myshkin spouts many of the beliefs that Dostoevsky counted as his own in private correspondence (pan-Slavism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Westernism) in a fit of disturbing mania? I think it's clear that we aren't meant to take what Myshkin says here as an example of well-reasoned, thoughtful argument. The reason Myshkin inspires both passionate devotion and disgust, sometimes in the same sentence, from the people around him is that we must admit the man has some kind of sacred aura around him, and yet he is easily fooled and taken advantage of. It is this same "idiocy" which makes the events leading up to the end of the book possible. We can't say that the crime that closes the book is Myshkin's fault per say, but I think it's clear that there are several stages in the book where his "goodness" actually enables the deviancy of others, and does nothing to prevent what is clearly making for a combustible situation. It's also clear that his open-heartedness brought pain to many people, where if he had just acted like a normal, self-interested person, the suffering almost certainly would have been more contained.

Here lies the heart of The Idiot's message: it's much easier to be bad than to be good. The paths towards selfishness, lust, greed are multitude - the path towards goodness is rare and vague, if it even exists at all. I think the power in the novel comes not from Dostoevsky pushing any kind of moral program or belief system; rather it stems from the depiction of the bravery and outright ignorance of reality it will take to pursue what is good, even if failure and isolation are almost certain. The failed attempt at a life of original goodness is still worth pursuing, in spite of the constant pull of base mediocrity that surrounds us at all times. ( )

O título é uma referência irónica à personagem central do romance, o Prince Myshkin, um jovem cuja bondade e simplicidade fazem com que muitas das personagens que encontra assumam erradamente que lhe falta inteligência e perspicácia.

“ᴅᴏ ʏᴏᴜ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ʜᴏᴡ ᴏɴᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ᴡᴀʟᴋ ʙʏ ᴀ ᴛʀᴇᴇ ᴀɴᴅ ɴᴏᴛ ʙᴇ ʜᴀᴘᴘʏ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ꜱɪɢʜᴛ ᴏꜰ ɪᴛ? ʜᴏᴡ ᴄᴀɴ ᴏɴᴇ ᴛᴀʟᴋ ᴛᴏ ᴀ ᴍᴀɴ ᴀɴᴅ ɴᴏᴛ ʙᴇ ʜᴀᴘᴘʏ ɪɴ ʟᴏᴠɪɴɢ ʜɪᴍ! ᴏʜ, ɪᴛ'ꜱ ᴏɴʟʏ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ɪ'ᴍ ɴᴏᴛ ᴀʙʟᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴇxᴘʀᴇꜱꜱ ɪᴛ...ᴀɴᴅ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʙᴇᴀᴜᴛɪꜰᴜʟ ᴛʜɪɴɢꜱ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴛ ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ꜱᴛᴇᴘ, ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴇᴠᴇɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴏꜱᴛ ʜᴏᴘᴇʟᴇꜱꜱ ᴍᴀɴ ᴍᴜꜱᴛ ꜰᴇᴇʟ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇ ʙᴇᴀᴜᴛɪꜰᴜʟ! ʟᴏᴏᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴀ ᴄʜɪʟᴅ! ʟᴏᴏᴋ ᴀᴛ ɢᴏᴅ'ꜱ ꜱᴜɴʀɪꜱᴇ! ʟᴏᴏᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ɢʀᴀꜱꜱ, ʜᴏᴡ ɪᴛ ɢʀᴏᴡꜱ! ʟᴏᴏᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇʏᴇꜱ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ɢᴀᴢᴇ ᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴀɴᴅ ʟᴏᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜ!”

Retrata o jovem e inocente Myshkin, de regresso à Rússia para procurar familiares afastados, após ter passado vários anos num sanatório suíço devido à sua epilepsia.

No comboio para a Rússia, conhece e faz amizade com um homem de caráter duvidoso chamado Rogozhin. Rogozhin está loucamente obcecado pela misteriosa beldade Nastasya Filippovna, a tal ponto que o leitor sabe que nada de bom sairá daí.
É claro que Prince Myshkin é envolvido por Rogozhin, Filippovna e pela sociedade que os rodeia.
Uma sociedade sedenta de dinheiro, de poder, fria e manipuladora.

O romance explora as consequências que advêm da inclusão de um ser humano de características singulares como as que referi, no centro dos conflitos; desejos; ambições e interesses da sociedade, tanto para o próprio como para aqueles com quem se envolve.
A ingenuidade da personagem é confrontada com um elenco exuberante de nobres sofisticados; aspirantes desesperados; ambiciosas sedutoras; jovens estudantes apaixonadas, perseguidores fanáticos, sonhadores românticos, entre outros.

Exprime com veracidade a condição humana exigente; as emoções que só conhecem a realidade da sua existência em cada ocasião. Trata-se, portanto, de um romance sincero e profundo, tal como o âmago do invulgar, mas cativante protagonista.

“ᴅᴏɴ’ᴛ ʟᴇᴛ ᴜꜱ ꜰᴏʀɢᴇᴛ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴀᴜꜱᴇꜱ ᴏꜰ ʜᴜᴍᴀɴ ᴀᴄᴛɪᴏɴꜱ ᴀʀᴇ ᴜꜱᴜᴀʟʟʏ ɪᴍᴍᴇᴀꜱᴜʀᴀʙʟʏ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴄᴏᴍᴘʟᴇx ᴀɴᴅ ᴠᴀʀɪᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴀɴ ᴏᴜʀ ꜱᴜʙꜱᴇQᴜᴇɴᴛ ᴇxᴘʟᴀɴᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇᴍ.”

Há emoção em abundância; disputas; traições e muito romance sinuoso que mantém o interesse.
Apesar de por vezes cruzarmo-nos com personagens excessivamente emotivas; que parecem sempre expressar-se com grande clareza; sempre com uma visão filosófica extremamente perspicaz, o conteúdo deste livro de Dostoiévski, é muito realista.

Myshkin é uma personagem encantadora submetida a escrutínios e julgamentos por parte dos que o rodeiam. Assim sendo, é impossível não sentir simpatia por ele.

“ɪ ᴀᴍ ᴀ ꜰᴏᴏʟ ᴡɪᴛʜ ᴀ ʜᴇᴀʀᴛ ʙᴜᴛ ɴᴏ ʙʀᴀɪɴꜱ, ᴀɴᴅ ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀ ꜰᴏᴏʟ ᴡɪᴛʜ ʙʀᴀɪɴꜱ ʙᴜᴛ ɴᴏ ʜᴇᴀʀᴛ; ᴀɴᴅ ᴡᴇ’ʀᴇ ʙᴏᴛʜ ᴜɴʜᴀᴘᴘʏ, ᴀɴᴅ ᴡᴇ ʙᴏᴛʜ ꜱᴜꜰꜰᴇʀ.”

Parece-me que "o idiota", era simplesmente excessivamente bondoso e demasiado ingénuo para o mundo que o rodeava. ( )

Story of Prince Myshkin returning to Russia after spending several years in an asylum in Switzerland for his epilepsy. His gentle manner and his seizures gets him labeled as the Idiot. The Prince struggles in the non-accepting society of Russia and eventually returns for treatment in Switzerland. ( )

Lovely portrait of an uncomplicated man in a complicated world. Frenetic and spasmodic at times.

For me, the book started off very promisingly, but then it drifted and so did I. What I loved about it was the character of Prince Myshkin (aka The Idiot). Not only wasn't he an idiot, he was the only sensible and likeable character in the book. He was the only one without an agenda ruling everything he said and did. Yes, he had very strong opinions about certain things and he would proselytize about those things, but it never made him think less of anyone who didn't agree with him. He was kind and sensitive and always tried to do the right thing despite others constantly throwing obstacles in his way. There were plenty of idiots in the novel; Myshkin just wasn't one of them. ( )

Fyodor Dostoyevsky at his best! One of the best classics I've read in a really long time. ( )

مدتی پیش بعد از فارغ شدن از مشکلات تصمیم گرفتم یک رمان بخونم و «جنایات و مکافات» رو انتخاب کردم اما یکی از دوستام داشت ابله رو می‌خوند و با تهدید و ترعیب من رو واداشت که ابله رو بخونم!

داستان درباره شخصی ساده‌دل و پاک‌نهاد به نام شاهزاده میشکین است که پس از معالجه امراض روانی و صرع از سوئیس به روسیه میاد و در قدم اول عاشق دختری بدنام به اسم ناستازی می‌شه. شاهزاده معصومی که میاد و کثافت‌های جامعه‌ش رو می‌بینه و هیچوقت نمی‌تونه خودش رو با اون وفق بده و در آخر از خودکشی صحبت می‌کنه و دستِ آخر به همون دیوونگی پناه می‌بره. نقطه‌قوت رمان به جرأت شخصیت‌پردازی اونه! شاهزاده‌ی ابله گاهی اونقدر آگاه و به هوش می‌شد که در موعد مقرر، ابله بودن اون کاملاً من رو آزار می‌داد و چقدر باورپذیر ابله بودن و آگاه بودن اون کنار هم جمع شده بود و تیشه‌ای به داستان نمی‌زد. شخصیت شاهزاده در درجه‌ی اول خیلی عجیب بود. شخصیتی که در عین قهرمان کلاسیک بودن گاهی به ضدقهرمان هم نزدیک می‌شد. شخصیتی که هر وقت در جمع قرار می‌گرفت تب می‌کرد و مریضی به سراغش می‌اومد و تحمل آدم‌ها رو نداشت. شخصیت جذاب دیگه ناستازی بود. ناستازی شخصیتی با بلاتکلیفی‌های روانی مخصوص به خودش... شخصیتی که بد نیست و بدنامه! شخصیتی که در عین حال که دوستش داری ازش متنفر هم هستی. شخصیت جذاب دیگه‌ای که برای من وجود داشت پاولیچف بود با اینکه هیچگاه به صورت مستقیم در داستان حضور نداشت و تنها در خاطرات بهش اشاره می‌شد. شخصیتی که تو ذهن شاهزاده قدرتمند و پاک بود و هربار با قسمتی از زندگیش روبه‌رو می‌شد که اون رو به تردید می‌نداخت و یا زوایای پنهان زندگیش رو به اون نشون می‌داد.
من با رمان‌های زیادی ارتباط برقرار کردم اما تنها دو رمان بود که تونستم همزادپنداری خیلی نزدیکی با شخصیت داشته باشم اولین رمان «زوربای یونانی» بود که من خیلی شخصیت خودم رو نزدیک به اربابِ زوربا می‌دونستم و این‌بار شاهزاده خیلی من رو تحت‌تأثیر قرار داد.
تعلیق‌ها نیز به نسبت مناسب و قدرتمند بود. شخصیت آگلائه و عشقی که بین شاهزاده و او وجود داره خودش کمک به تعلیق می‌کنه. اما گاهی نوع روایت فضا از رئالیسم فاصله می‌گرفت و به رمانتیک نزدیک‌تر می‌شد. فضاسازی هم کمتر در خدمت داستان بود و بیشتر بستری برای رخ دادن داستان در اون بود. تنها جایی که خیلی خوب توصیف شده بود و در خدمت داستان بود آپارتمان روگوژین بود. با این اوصاف بسیار بسیار بسیار از خوندن این رمان لذت بردم و باهاش حال کردم. ( )

A sense of foreboding dominates this lengthy novel from the outset, yet like the best of mysteries, I suffered from misdirection throughout and assumed the main character was doomed until I reached the final pages. By his innocence and sincerity, he had provoked reactions that included envy and unreasoning hatred. I was sure he would be killed in the end; I was only unsure who would wield the knife or pistol; there were many possible candidates.
But no, Prince Myshkin (the “idiot” of the title) does not lose his life, simply his mind after spending the night shut in a room with the corpse of his runaway bride, sharing a sofa with the woman’s killer.
As many have pointed out, if one defines the novel genre based on the long tradition perfected in Britain and France, there is much wrong with many of the great Russian novels, including this one. It’s a fact the author slyly concedes when he has the prince discover the last book his missing bride was reading, Madame Bovary, and pocket it on his way out the door.
Earlier on, another book had served as a sign. From the opening pages, it’s clear that the prince is a Christ figure (the drunken scene as twelve guests greet the prince on his birthday—-a parody of the Last Supper—reinforced my conviction we were headed to Golgotha). But in Part Two, Chapter One, he writes a letter to one of the two women he loves, Aglaia Ivanovna. She doesn’t want to misplace the letter, so she puts it where she files anything important: her copy of Don Quixote. Aha, I said to myself, in addition to being the doomed innocent lamb, Prince Myshkin is also a knight errant. This also changed my understanding of Nastasya Filippovna, the other woman he loved. Until then, I had taken her as a Mary Magdalene, but from then on, she was also Dulcinea.
To say that the prince loved these two women puts it too simply, though the prince himself says he does. Especially toward the darkly beautiful Nastasya, love mingles with pity, fear, and hatred. She reciprocates this volatile mix of feelings, similar to what Aglaia feels toward the prince.
But love and its conventional outcome, marriage, seem to be things Prince Myshkin allows to happen to him (or not) rather than anything he initiates or is capable of consummating. In fact, not only in his relation to these two women but toward the vast cast of “strange and incredible characters” (as the narrator refers to them) that populate the book, he is open to all. The prince is a passive protagonist (he “acts” only in the sense a catalyst does); he seems incapable of distinguishing friend from foe. I have to qualify that: He seems aware throughout the book that Rogozhin is his nemesis, yet extends to him the same non-judgmental friendliness with which he encounters everyone.
Though the prince doesn’t judge, he nevertheless displays remarkable insight into those he meets, telling them guilelessly what he sees (this straightforwardness on his part is perhaps why, for all his understanding, he can’t recognize guile in others).
The book contains repeated references to “the woman question.” I suspect this was a topic in mid-nineteenth-century Russia, although I don’t know. Yet I was ambivalent about Dostoyevsky’s treatment of the key female characters. Laudably, the author seems to share the prince’s refusal to join in the general condemnation of Nastasya as a shameful woman but views her as the victim of sexual abuse instead. Yet the prince’s alacrity to conclude she is crazy hardly seems more progressive—-particularly since her counterpart, Aglaia, with her violent mood swings and irrational behavior, seems another exemplar of an alien species that confounds the author.
As with any long Russian masterpiece, keeping the characters straight is challenging. Not only are there so many, but they’re referred to interchangeably by their family surname, by given name plus patronymic, and by familiar name. For the most part, I was able to keep them apart. Still, in one scene, two families, the Eplanchins and the Igolvins, are present in full, along with assorted other characters, including a new suitor for Aglaia’s hand, Yevgeny Pavlovich. He is newly introduced into the story, and I failed to take much note of him and thought his interjections were those of General Igolvin. I had to go back over the scene again when I realized my error. It happened again in a crucial scene toward the end when Aglaia drags the prince to confront Nastasya and Rogozhin. Though only four are present, there is so much use of pronouns rather than names that I got lost.
Despite these difficulties, I enjoyed the book. Part of the pleasure was the story itself. Much of the text is dialogue, and much of what is not seems like extended stage directions; there is little interiority in the characters. I imagined what a great six-hour miniseries this would make, with nothing cut. Had I been able to film it in the 1930s, I’d have loved to cast Garbo (with dyed hair) as Nastasya and Jean Harlow (playing against type) as Aglaia. For the prince, perhaps Peter Lorre; once again, against type.
Beyond the plot, I also enjoyed technical aspects. Along with the symbolic references to key works in the novel tradition, there are several cases of twinning. Among them are the poor girl Marie, whom the prince befriended during his sanatorium stay in Switzerland, as a counterpart to Nastasya, and Ferdyshtenko, who claims for himself Prince Myshkin’s virtue of speaking the truth but does so with a vindictiveness foreign to the prince. And at times, the narrator intrudes, such as in his reflection on the employment of outrageous characters in novels rather than the ordinary people of daily life, or (also in Part 4), when he confesses to being a less than omniscient narrator.
I read the widely-available Constance Garnett translation. Apart from getting off to an inauspicious start, which due to an unclear antecedent seems to say the train is thawing—an error every other translation I checked avoided—it was readable. ( )

A frustrating read... i am still processing it and likely need someone to help me with it. I am reading the part of the Mochulsky bio about the Idiot and that helps a lot, but still... Yes, the difficult portrayal of the perfect man. It's full of striking scenes and characters- like the wonderful opening train scene with Myshkin, Rogzhin and Lebedev.. and that transition to the Nastaya Fillipovna drama. Ok- there we have it and then it spins and spins till the tragic conclusion- but what is really happening? what is the point of Myshkin's "development" in the novel? The perfect man evolves? Well, he becomes more acclimated to his society - everyone seems to love him and yes, he is an innocent. ok. and...? Don't really see the point of Aglaya either- ok, so she is also amazing and it is "tragic" that it doesn't work out, but is it really? She's pretty annoying most of the time. Though I did love the part (she's involved) in the long digression of merely average people (Ganya). Ippolit's confession is well put and serves as a kind of dark manifesto. Lizaveta always brings life to the scenes she is in and i cherish her character. So- so much to recommend the book- but ... what's the point, again? Enlighten me. ( )

Dostoyevsky set out to portray a "positively beautiful man" in The Idiot. Unfortunately in our society, such a character can only end up one way. ( )

It's a classic, but not nearly as good as Karamazov.

I had a hard time getting into this novel, which seemed to be as much of a love story as about the Big Philosophical topics I associate with Russian novelists. ( )

I re-read this because I remember really enjoying it as a teen and thinking it was quite funny at points. I sure didn't find that this time and I was frustrated by the pacing. I found the last half interminable and felt like I was missing something. I tried to read it with great attention to make sure I didn't miss some detail but still found little of importance. The contradictions and inconsistencies of the characters were confusing. It seemed not that the characters themselves were variable but that Dostoevsky had an inconsistent idea of what the character's roles. ( )

Here's what I wrote after reading in 1988: "Dostoevsky confuses me, yet I keep reading. 'The Idiot is a quintessentially Russian novel, one that penetrates the complex pysche of the Russian people.' Dostoevsky's hero, Prince Myshkin, is similar to Dostoevsky in that he is an epileptic. This, and his simplicitic idealism acquired within his sheltered invalid's environment, earn him the appellation "Idiot". His ideals and health, however, are tested when Myshkin re-enter wealth / power-oriented Society. The events that occur, including murder and mental illness, cause Myshkin to lose his fragile mental and physical health." Should definitely re-read this; would get even more from it at this more-experienced-at-life vantage point and it's deeply phychological (you probably read more for the story the first time). ( )

First of all: adiha-w=0-]r
[3Ltq3wiejfiosgjipeugiouswptusadhko;gfkews'zep2 ]qrpdfa[w oedjsjp[
Secondly: I thought that the bit where Rogozhin brings Myshkin (by the hand!) to be blessed by his mother was rough. I thought that the part where Rogozhin attempts to stab Myshkin (with the phallic-symbol-knife!!!!), was rough. I thought the part where Aglaya says that Nastasya is /in love with her/ was rough. But absolutely nothing could have prepared me for the end, in which Myshkin and Rogozhin lie down together (together!) and hold and caress each other while awaiting the consequences of the whole mess to come in the morning and Nastasya is [redacted] and Aglaya has ruined her own life and started ruining it after her confrontation with Nastasya... I felt absolutely Feral. Dostoevsky had absolutely no right to write something like that. oh my god.
Also the scene where Nastasya slapped a guy in the face with a riding crop was hot full stop. ( )

first dostoyevsky for me and while it was a very long and arduous reading, i quite enjoyed it. ( )