The Idiot

3.5⭐️
«زیبایی دنیا را نجات خواهد داد.»
تمام چیزی بود که نیاز داشتم از این هزار صفحه به یاد داشته باشم.
.
.
میرم یکم یوتیوب و اینترنت مقاله و تحلیل بخونم و بشنوم بلکه بتونم بهتر قضاوتش کنم پیش خودم.
اما در طول این کتاب من یک بار هم به ذهنم نرسید که بخوام یا بتونم "به کسی پیشنهادش کنم" میدونین چی میگم.

در کل،
تو شاهکار بودنش شکی نیست
معنا مفهوم فلسفه شخصیت پردازی،
همونطور که ابله پیامبر قرن نوزدهمه،
داستایفسکی هم همچنان پیامبر نویسندگانه.

ولی تو همه‌ی ریویوها میگفتن صد صفحه‌ی آخرش خیلیییی خوب میشه
ولی واسه من چیز خاصی نبود

This hurt a lot and made me feel so much insane despair and made me incredibly sick to my stomach. No one does it quite like Dostoevsky, and I don’t think I will even be close to satisfied with this story until I can reread it.

full rtc, maybe sometime, but for now I need to lie down and ponder.

Do you answer ‘yes’ to any of the following questions?

1. You ever sleep in another person’s house for the first time, not wanting to turn on a light to see your way to the toilet, and run into a wall?
2. You ever been in a public building at night and the power fails, and you run into a wall?
3. You ever been camping with an overcast night and straggle into the woods to take a pee, and run into a wall of shrubbery?
4. You ever been in a leadership reaction course, blindfolded, and run into a wall?
5. You ever been deployed to Qatar in the transition billeting tent at night, not wanting to disturb all the soldiers with your mag-light, and run into a tent wall?

What do these questions have in common? 3 things. One, you’ve lost your primary sense--eyesight. Two, you’ve run into something through which you can’t pass. Three, to continue you must turn east or west. This is exactly how I felt when I read The Idiot. Lost, in a strange place, against a barrier. (preview: it’s all about the translator, paragraph 10)

Then I agonized for a week about posting a review of a piece of monolithic literature to which I award only 2 stars. How the hell, dude, can you award 2 stars to an uber-classic? Did you forget it was Dostoevsky? Do you realize that among your 56 friends on Goodreads that 2 stars is the lowest anyone has rated it? You missed something; you’re ignorant!

And I truly subjected myself to several good harangues. I reread the lengthy, academic foreword and afterword. I thought deeply about the book. I stretched my mind, my cognitive abilities, each time against a wall. I was really concerned about your opinion of me, as a reader, as a consumer of serious literature, as a trustworthy, balanced critic of dense writing.

Then it appeared to me, like a turn in the dark. Screw you!! I’m not writing this for you. I write reviews to capture how I feel about a specific novel at a particular place and time in my life. It’s completely fair to award 2 stars to Dostoevsky. At this particular time in my life--as I realize the Deepwater Horizon oil spill may have been overblown by the media, as I decide whether or not to delete my Facebook account, as I realize Obama’s economic plan is an absolute failure with unemployment remaining above 9% for the next 12 months and home values not rebounding for 36 months, as I wonder if next will be as tough as the previous year raising my 3 young kids--at this particular time in my life, I didn’t very much enjoy The Idiot. This is where I’m at in time and place with The Idiot, and I’m so glad to capture feelings other than a middling 3 stars (which is sometimes a rounding error). 2 stars is harsh, but fair.

I read Crime and Punishment twice, and think The Brothers Karamazov one of the best 5 books I ever read. I’ve been under the spell of Dostoevsky for nearly half my life. So my lean this week into The Idiot was a disappointment.

Here’s what the author said about the book: “There’s much in the novel...that didn’t come off, but something did come off. I don’t stand behind my novel, but I do stand behind my idea.” Authors sometimes give themselves a giant pat on the back, but couch it in self-deprecating language. As if to say the ideas in the novel were so august, so pantheon, so divine that their ability to define or make sense of these ideas with terrestrial words resulted, simply, in a spatchcock of human themes. Ignore the writing. The message is in the idea. Come on, Fyodor, we all know you write like an immortal.

The Idiot is brimming with philosophical inquiry into people’s lives, society, culture, and history. Immutable, transcendent ideas about which Russian writers always grapple. The authors of the foreword/afterword reveal and underscore dozens of themes in the book. They discuss mechanics and perspectives and symbols. They discuss Russian history and the Russian concept of suffering, and how these were adroitly parsed among the characters. And how the characters themselves represented the unique attributes--in splinter form--of the Russian whole.

Well that’s all great. You read it and take from it what you want. I found it tangled, hard to follow, uninteresting. The characters were so weighed down by being representatives of the Russian whole that they failed to be engaging characters by themselves. And so unlike Dostoevsky, I found not a single sentence worth transcribing here. In 660 pages, wow, nothing worth remembering. How unfulfilling. Certainly nothing like THIS powerful, euphonic sentence.

(Important) Because I know Fyodor can bring the noise, it leads me to believe that the translation is faulty, dated. Indeed, I read the version translated originally in 1913 by Olga Carlisle. It’s the staid, orthodox version. Perhaps if I read the translation by Larissa Volokonsky, then I would’ve been in measure with the writing. She won the 2002 Efim Etkind Translation Award for her work on The Idiot, for Chris’akes!! Swoon. Cuss. Paradise Lost! Alas, I won’t reread The Idiot. It’s just too long...and me, I’m too slow a reader. I’ll read The Possessed in a couple years. The experts call it a more traditional story on par with CAP and TBK. Dostoevsky is too fine a writer to abandon, and so I won’t.

Another problem I had with the Carlisle translation was the melodramatic interpretation of character staging. Let me, for example, open the book to page 580--a random choice--and list every instance on both pages where the character staging is electrified.

...got up rather late and immediately recalled...
...first moment she burst into tears...
...the prince at once reassured her...
...he was suddenly struck by the strong compassion...
...Vera blushed deeply...
...she cried in alarm, quickly drawing her hand away...
...went away in a strangely troubled state...
...her father had hurried off...
...Koyla ran in, also for only a minute...
...in a great hurry...
...was in a state of intense and troubled agitation...
...was deeply and violently moved...
...poor boy was thunderstruck...
...quietly burst into tears...
...he jumped up...
...hurriedly inquired about...
...added in haste...
...was predicting disaster...
...was asking pointed questions...
...with a gesture of vexation...
...accursed morbid mistrustfulness...
...in the form of an order, abruptly, dryly, without explanation...
...suddenly turning around...
...and feverishly looked at his watch...

Remember, this came from a total of 1200 printed words. The entire book is similarly charged. I got tired of reading all this ‘juiced’ action. Did Dostoevsky intend 660 pages of melododrama, or was this a translator’s interpretation? I got robbed, man. Bad translation. The review stops here.

داستان حول محور یک شخص ساخته شده، پرنس میشکین یا همون ابله خودمون. پرنس که از کودکی بیمار بوده و پدر و مادرش رو هم از دست داده توسط یک انسان خیرخواه بدون اینکه ما دلیل لطفش رو بدونیم به سوییس برای درمان فرستاده میشه. در سوییس حالش رو به بهبود میره و با یک نامه به روسیه برمیگرده. در قطار با افرادی آشنا میشه و در صحبت ها اسم افرادی میاد که به اضافه ی خانواده ای که پرنس فکر میکنه تنها اقوام اون هستن شخصیت های اصلی داستان رو تشکیل میدن. جدای از داستانهای عشقی جنایی که در کتاب رخ میده و برای فهمیدنش باید هزار صفحه ناقابل رو بخونید شخصیت ابله، شخصیت عجیبیه. شخصیتی به شدت نوع دوست و دست شسته از مال دنیا، احساساتی و بدون احتیاط با نظریات مذهبی سیاسی خاص خودش. سعی میکنه به همه کمک کنه و همه رو ببخشه، و برای کوچکترین کارها بارها عذرخواهی کنه و شاید نمونه ی یک انسان کامل باشه (البته بیشتر شبیه اون بچه مردمه که همیشه پدر و مادر تو سر فرزندانشون میزنن، اونقدری هم که میگن عالی نیست). خلاصه این شخصیت تنها آدم بی شیله پیله داستانه و برای همین هم شده ابله و در بین بقیه دوام نمیاره.ه

A Prince Among Men
"The humor of Dostoyevsky is the humor of a bar loafer who ties a kettle to a dog's tail." W. Somerset Maugham, A Writer's Notebook

Prince Myshkin, this novel's protagonist, immediately came to mind when I recently heard the phrase "a prince among men," well after having read this a few years back.

What happens when you drop into higher society a man with a title but an illness that took him away to Switzerland for all his youth? Dostoevsky wanted to write a novel that answered the question of how society of the day would treat a true innocent, an unmarried man in his mid-20s who does not sin and only has love to give (in Christianity, only One fits that description). To me, this was Dostoevsky's sad, but hopeful parabolic answer. While published in 1869, The Idiot is essentially timeless and remains one of the best novels of all time.

This is the second novel I've read of Dostoevsky in which he depicts the females less than favorably. Understandably so in this novel. The primary basis for the lead female in this book, "Natasha Filippovna," was Polina Suslova with whom Fee-Yo had a relationship while his first wife was sick with consumption. He found Suslova imperious, manipulative, jealous, noting, for example, that she repeatedly demanded he divorce his "consumptive wife." He later wrote of Suslova that she was "a sick selfish woman" who refused to tolerate any imperfection in others and whose "selfishness and self-esteem were colossal." After his first wife's death in 1865, he proposed to Suslova, but she declined. She didn't respect, and rarely read, his books and regarded him as a simple admirer.


Polina Suslova


Of the 3 Dostoyevsky novels I've read (The Idiot/The Brothers Karamazov/Crime & Punishment), the first two depicted ladies unfavorably. The negative depiction of Filippovna in The Idiot was crucial to the story. On the other hand, I found the negativity toward females gratuitous in The Brothers Karamazov.

In any case, I highly recommend this novel, one of my favorites.

Non tenterò nemmeno di commentare L’idiota. Voglio solo esprimere pubblicamente la mia sconfinata ammirazione per Dostoevskij, per colui che ha creato un personaggio gigantesco, sublime, indefinibile eppure definito nella sua complessità, il principe Myskin: è uno sciocco eppure molto intelligente, è sincero nella sua renitenza alle regole ipocrite dell’alta società così ingenua da lasciare sbalorditi ma è anche dissimulatore quando occorre, è sradicato, senza origini, comparso come dal nulla eppure è al contempo cittadino russo a tutti gli effetti, è assennato e saggio eppure a volte appare come un buffone, è apatico e mite ed al contempo iperattivo, è comico in molti suoi atteggiamenti, sempre col sorriso sulle labbra, eppure è uno dei personaggi più tragici che la letteratura conosca. Il principe “idiota”, il “segnato da Dio”, colui che sta al confine tra la follia e la genialità, tra la superficie e la profondità, tra la vita e la morte, è una figura che riempie le pagine della letteratura; io non ho nulla da dire se non inchinarmi davanti al genio russo.

„- Dar Rogojin s-ar căsători [cu Nastasia Filippovna]?
- Cred că și mîine s-ar putea căsători [zise Prințul]; s-ar căsători și, peste o săptămînă, zic eu, ar înjunghia-o” (p.40).

Prințul Mișkin are toate calitățile unui om „cu desăvîrșire minunat”: inocență, franchețe, intuiție a psihologiei celor din jur, capacitate de a anticipa consecințele, bunătate, blîndețe. Din păcate, „clarviziunea” lui e luată de ceilalți în rîs. Sinceritatea lui necruțătoare îi aduce calificativul de „idiot”.

Termenul „idiot / idiota” nu a avut întotdeauna sensul peiorativ de azi. În Evul Mediu, îl desemna pe individul care nu a fost pervertit de școli și lecturi, individul care judecă și gîndește cu mintea lui. Cu acest sens, îl folosește Nikolaus Cusanus în titlurile cărților sale.

Firește, Lev Nikolaevici Mîșkin poate fi caracterizat ca „idiota” (în sens medieval). Dar în romanul lui Dostoievski, termenul e folosit, desigur, cu înțelesul lui difamant: Mișkin e prost, sărac cu duhul, nu știe să-și țină gura, nu respectă discreția, spune tot ce-i trece prin cap, indiferent de urmări. Franchețea lui nesăbuită este, de multe ori, o formă de cruzime. Din acest motiv, Ganea îl lovește, iar Rogojin vrea să-l ucidă. E o nouă ipostază a lui Don Quijote. Cînd oamenii s-au obișnuit cu minciuna și situațiile echivoce, adevărul devine o ofensă și un scandal. Prințul este cu siguranță un „trouble-fête”. După cum exclamă un personaj, „apariția lui produce haos”.

Am putea gîndi că prezența prințului va opri catastrofa din final. Dar nu este deloc așa. Mîșkin nu poate împiedica răul. Mai curînd, îl precipită...

Desigur, Dostoievski și-a pus în Idiotul o problemă mai largă, știm asta din însemnările lui. Oare ce s-ar întîmpla dacă Iisus Christos ar reveni printre noi? Întrebarea l-a obsedat pe autor multă vreme. Un prim răspuns poate fi găsit în romanul de față, celălalt în „Parabola Marelui Inchizitor” din Frații Karamazov. În ambele cazuri, a doua venire ar consemna un eșec. Omul nu mai poate fi salvat de nimeni, Dumnezeu a eșuat. Răspunsul lui Dostoievski e pesimist.

P. S. Cineva a rezumat Idiotul în chipul următor: „Doi bărbați iubesc aceeași femeie, în timp ce două femei iubesc același bărbat”. E imposibil să știm dacă Mîșkin o iubește cu adevărat pe Nastasia Filippovna. Mila nu înseamnă întotdeauna iubire.

P. P. S. Dostoievski a lucrat la Idiotul din decembrie 1867 (se afla în exil la Geneva) pînă în ianuarie 1869. Criticii literari nu au fost deloc entuziasmați de roman. L-au găsit haotic, rău construit, greu de urmărit. Meseria criticului literar e să caute noduri în papură și, cînd nu le găsește, să le inventeze...

This guy is on a morning train to St Petersburg. He knows nobody there. He has no money and no possessions. He’s this close to being a vagabond. But he gets in conversation with this other guy and one meeting leads to another and by ten o’clock that night – 160 pages later – he is telling a lady he never met before not to marry a guy he never met before, and then declaring his own total love for this lady.

That’s right just another day in 19th century Russia, Dosto-style.

If Dostoyevsky was a 21st century writer he would be so rich writing scripts for shows like Desperate Housewives or Days of Our Lives because one thing he was was a natural born soap opera scriptwriter. He produced tremendous shouty thirty page arguments and 50 page carcrash scenes involving 12 outrageously-behaving borderline lunatics, just right for the campier type of tv, but I guess he’d have flounced out of his moneyspinning career on day one when they refused to include one character’s five minute monologue on what it must feel like in the half second when you are watching the guillotine blade begin to descend on your naked neck.



WHAT THIS LONG BOOK IS ABOUT

The Idiot is about this young Prince (it was a minor minor title, not royal or even royalish) who comes to town and gets involved with these train people and their families and kind of gets all entangled. There are two strong female leads (Nastasya and Aglaya), both of whom can bring men to their knees with a single glance, and this leads to many complications. Some of the plot can be summed up by the Lovin’ Spoonful in their 1966 hit “Did you Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind?”

Did you ever have to finally decide?
And say yes to one and let the other one ride?
There's so many changes and tears you must hide.
Did you ever have to finally decide?

It may be a bit spoilerish (but you will have forgotten it before you get round to reading this) but these two women finally meet in a showdown that is a 19th century Russian version of the one in A Fistful of Dollars. It's a great scene, one of many.

Also, I should mention one great scene where Nastasya rips a whip out of some nasty guy's hands and smashes his face with it.... go Nastasya!!

DOSTOWORLD

Rich men who rape poor girls don’t generally apologise :

He could not repent of his original action with her as he was a hardened voluptuary

Guys have got poor attitudes to marriage :

Although at last, after agonising hesitations, he agreed to marry the “vile woman” he swore in his soul to take a bitter revenge on her for it and to “harry her to death” later on

People do not think tact is something to even think twice about:

Earlier today I thought you were an out-and-out evildoer… now I see that one can consider you neither an evildoer nor even a very corrupt man. In my opinion, you’re just the most ordinary man there could be.

People are gold medal standard haters :

I hate you more than anything and anyone in the world! I understood and hated you long ago, when I first heard about you, I hated you with all the hatred of my soul.

Women send their boyfriends strange presents :

“Did you receive my hedgehog?” she asked firmly and almost angrily.



TALES OF THE MIDDLE AGES

Comedy flashes all the way through this long strange tale and the funniest part for me was when some people are discussing outbreaks of cannibalism during famines of previous centuries. Somebody says :

One such cannibal, approaching old age, announced of his own accord and without any compulsion that throughout his long and poverty-stricken life he had killed and eaten personally sixty monks and several lay infants…

Later on :

“But could anyone possibly eat sixty monks?” People laughed all round.


THE COMICAL DOSTOYEVSKY NARRATOR

In The Brothers Karamazov and again here the narrator is a bumbling old fart type character who often breaks into the narrative and delivers a speech of his own or says stuff like

Perhaps we shall do no great harm to the vividness of our narrative if we pause here and have recourse to a few explanations

And as the story gets more complicated the narrator frankly gives up trying to understand what’s going on, which I thought was most amusing :

We feel we must confine ourselves to the plain exposition of the facts, as far as possible without particular explanations, for a very simple reason : because we ourselves are hard put to explain what happened.

A RARE WORD

Ten points to the translator David McDuff for using a rare and excellent word

Fanfaronade

Alas, it means “boastful talk” when it should mean something much prettier.
And in general this translation was beautifully readable, as is the book itself.

RATING DOSTO

This is my third big Dostoyevsky book this year and I think The Idiot is overshadowed by Crime & Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov but that’s because they are two of the most extraordinary novels ever. So it’s an unfair comparison. The plot of The Idiot is frenzied and cramful of too many people talking at the same time and trips over itself in the middle (caused I think by Dosto writing to a magazine deadline when he just didn’t know how the story should go) but it’s a hell of a ride so try it some time, say, during a global pandemic.

HOW THE AVERAGE DOSTO CHARACTER BEGINS HIS DAY

In a state of indescribable agitation, bordering on terror