I was reading this at mainly the same time as you, and it took me (significantly) more than a week as I took it in bite sized chunks every day. I largely agree with your assessment: The novel is a thought experiment and a philosophical inquiry. And the interest lies in the characters and how they react to Myshkin. And it succeeds on that level
While agreeing with you that a purely "Christ-like" depiction of Myshkin would not have worked as well as a man with some flaws. However, knowing that this was to be Dostoyevsky's depiction of "the perfect man", I still found some of Myshkin's actions less than satisfying. As the novel went on, particularly with regards to how he navigated the two love interests, he struck me as too weak, indecisive and passive to be in any way considered "perfect".
Can I ask what translation you used? I read Constance Garnett, and I have usually been satisfied with her work: In this case, I found the novel slow-going and sometimes confusing. But I don't know how much of that is Dostoyevsky and how much Garnett (and how much simply my own limited abilities). I was able to blaze through her Brothers Karamazov, but not her Idiot. When I turn to The Possessed, and eventually a reread of Crime and Punishment, I may give another translator a chance, but I'm not sure who yet.
Thank you for these comments. I agree that many of Myshkin's actions are less than satisfying. I think Dostoevsky may have discovered that perfection in a social animal fails without a corresponding perfection in others. By "corresponding," I don't mean love must be reciprocated. I mean that love must be received, and one can be better or worse at receiving love. Nastasya is so damaged she can't, so their relationship ends tragically. Could Myshkin love more adroitly, he might bring her to the point where she could let herself be loved. I think something similar happens with each character, but not in as extreme a form as with Nastasya. No one seems to know how to respond to what Myshkin offers them.
I apologize for not getting back with you any sooner. This has been my first opportunity to sit at the computer. Glad you found the translation. I really like all the Pevear and Volokhonsky translations I've seen. Garnett is too stodgy for my taste. I try to mention translators whenever there is one, but I overlooked it in this post. I'll go back and edit it for others.
Thank you so much for this. I have only just started reading The Idiot. I, too, have been both a bit annoyed and laughing out loud. I have already stolen the idea that my birthday and age have arrived "completely unexpected," and received excellent responses to my wit! Fun.
I was reading this at mainly the same time as you, and it took me (significantly) more than a week as I took it in bite sized chunks every day. I largely agree with your assessment: The novel is a thought experiment and a philosophical inquiry. And the interest lies in the characters and how they react to Myshkin. And it succeeds on that level
While agreeing with you that a purely "Christ-like" depiction of Myshkin would not have worked as well as a man with some flaws. However, knowing that this was to be Dostoyevsky's depiction of "the perfect man", I still found some of Myshkin's actions less than satisfying. As the novel went on, particularly with regards to how he navigated the two love interests, he struck me as too weak, indecisive and passive to be in any way considered "perfect".
Can I ask what translation you used? I read Constance Garnett, and I have usually been satisfied with her work: In this case, I found the novel slow-going and sometimes confusing. But I don't know how much of that is Dostoyevsky and how much Garnett (and how much simply my own limited abilities). I was able to blaze through her Brothers Karamazov, but not her Idiot. When I turn to The Possessed, and eventually a reread of Crime and Punishment, I may give another translator a chance, but I'm not sure who yet.
Thank you for these comments. I agree that many of Myshkin's actions are less than satisfying. I think Dostoevsky may have discovered that perfection in a social animal fails without a corresponding perfection in others. By "corresponding," I don't mean love must be reciprocated. I mean that love must be received, and one can be better or worse at receiving love. Nastasya is so damaged she can't, so their relationship ends tragically. Could Myshkin love more adroitly, he might bring her to the point where she could let herself be loved. I think something similar happens with each character, but not in as extreme a form as with Nastasya. No one seems to know how to respond to what Myshkin offers them.
I apologize for not getting back with you any sooner. This has been my first opportunity to sit at the computer. Glad you found the translation. I really like all the Pevear and Volokhonsky translations I've seen. Garnett is too stodgy for my taste. I try to mention translators whenever there is one, but I overlooked it in this post. I'll go back and edit it for others.
It looks like you answered my question above in the notes to your post on Anna Karenina: Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.
Interesting read!! Enjoyed it 😀👌
Glad you got something out of those reflections. There is a lot to appreciate in the book, and there is never a dull moment.
Thank you so much for this. I have only just started reading The Idiot. I, too, have been both a bit annoyed and laughing out loud. I have already stolen the idea that my birthday and age have arrived "completely unexpected," and received excellent responses to my wit! Fun.