n  The tragedy of being too goodn

An ideal idiot

Most of my favorite characters are either pure evil or complex anti-hero type; the stereotype Mr. Goody-two-shoes has never appealed to me; however Prince Muishkin, the idiot in the novel, is now going to be an exception.

He has suffered from idiocy due to epilepsy (FD too suffered from epilepsy attacks) all his childhood and early youth. Perhaps it was due to this idiocy that he has not adopted the common sense – the ‘normal’ way of looking at the world which is formed by slow corruption of our sense of compassion on pretext of what is called self-defense in a cruel world.

P. is full of compassion – which is very clear from stories he tells (the stories you tell, tell a lot about yourself.) His goodness (unlike Evegeine’s calculated goodness and Ptitson who allows himself only small evils) makes him indifferent to harm being done to himself if it means happiness of someone else. If you try to insult or hurt him; he would feel sorry for circumstances that made you do so; and let you cheat him. It is not so much that he doesn't notice or can't defend the harm done to himself but rather he prefers to suffer himself rather than bring on others - even if others are sinister in their ways.

He has no sense of social class - he could talk in the same way with servants or master, grownups or children. He lets you make fun of him – often himself joining the lough himself.

He won’t stand for his rights but would stand to fight for others. He got into a fight twice within novel, and both times it was to defend someone.

His natural goodness won’t let him be suspicious, angry or jealous of anyone; in fact he would reproach himself if he finds himself harboring any such emotion. This restrain is contrasted by people that surround him – drunkards, rogues etc (FD’s novels are always full of contrasts) It is not that he is above all emotions – he is easily excited – but by such emotions like guilt, gratitude and happiness and never so much that he could harm someone.

He is tipsy and cuts a messy figure which makes people under-rate him – the fact that he himself is ignorant of his abilities doesn’t help. He has a kind of inferiority complex about him, can’t believe that he can be loved by a woman – which is ironical because four woman are attracted to him during the novel.

n  A loved idiotn

Thus it is easier for you to make fun of him; but you will do it at your own peril; his turn-the-other-cheek attitude is bound to find your love sooner or later. Even those who try to cheat on him end up loving him. A third reason for which he attracts attention is curiosity. He is purely original in his thoughts (as opposed to Gania’s lack of originality.) Thus while people under-rate him in beginning; soon they all end up respecting him - in a way. They adopt him, pet him, forgive him all mistakes and want him to do well in life; because of his absolute inability to harm anyone.

Lizaveta likes him but do not want him to marry her daughter to him - knowing that his goodness won't let him survive him for long in the world. However she won’t admit to herself reasons for same. One of  the women he loves, leave him as she thinks she doesn’t deserve him; another leaves him because …. Well, in being good to everyone, he ends up hurting her.

P. is a good example who shows that if we play the good Samaritan too much; it is always at cost of harming ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, those who love or depend on us.

n  Christ?n  n

P. was supposed to be inspired from a Hans Holbein the Younger's painting 'The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb' (see below)  - the realism of which struck both FD and P. powerfully.

P's reaction upon seeing painting is here:

n  
n  n    "The prince glanced at it, but took no further notice. He moved on hastily, as though anxious to get out of the house. But Rogozhin suddenly stopped underneath the picture. […]n   
n   
n    "I like looking at that picture," muttered Rogozhin, not noticing, apparently, that the prince had not answered his question.n   
n   
n    "That picture! That picture!" cried Myshkin, struck by a sudden idea. "Why, a man's faith might be ruined by looking at that picture!"n  n  
n

It is the fact that in this painting Christ has wounds and looks beaten just like mortal, his body is seen putrefying. FD's wife note how she had to take him away from this painting as she was afraid he would get one of his attacks.

While P. never preached or anything, FD definitely put Christ's good heart in him. There are other important distances between two, unlike Prince, Jesus was not shocked upon discovery the barbarity prevalent in the world. Jesus was, IMO, more assertive too and at least once got angry.

Prince's complete lack of aggressiveness is completely contrasted by Rogozhin, Dostoyevsky's idea of anti-Christ. And this anti-Christ isn't pure evil but someone who can't stand the idea of being cheated upon. A person lacking ability to forgive is all that Dostoyevsky's idea of evil. However Dostoyevsky goes one step further making Prince and Rogozhin friends. In the end, Prince's couldn't defeat the anti-Christ in Rogozhin and his own compassion became his doom.

FD makes P. a true Christian – a christen by heart and default; and convinces us that it is suicidal to be good in a world of corrupt souls.

“Compassion was the most important, perhaps the sole law of human existence.”

Sally Rooney’s two (sort of) heroines in Beautiful World, Alice and Eileen, gush about how much they love The Idiot's Prince Myshkin as fictional heartthrob. Then in the same month a friend claims he likes The Idiot better than either of my preferences, The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment. That's a sign. And them's also fightin’ words, the basis for a bar fight, but you need ammunition for the fight, as in citations from the text, and so on. Can get violent. So I realize I gotta reread it. I loved the book almost fifty years ago when I read it, but I thought what the heck, 600+ pages in blindingly small print? No problem! The edition I read is by the Russian masters of translation Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote The Idiot after his wildly successful Crime and Punishment, which features an unhappy skeptic, a complicated guy at best, okay--a bad guy, Raskolnikov, who does a very bad thing, though he also seems to possibly be redeemed at the end. In The Idiot Dostoevsky tries something radically different, to feature an almost wholly good, admirable man, seemingly out of step with the fashions of the world. Most of the worldly characters think he is a simpleton, naive, an “idiot.” He says simple things such as “Beauty will save the world,” and seems childlike to almost everyone.

“I don't like being with grown-up people. I've known that a long time. I don't like it because I don't know how to get on with them”-- Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin.

I understand The Idiot is the most personal of Dostoevsky's novels, focusing on his own struggles with various things, including his epilepsy, and also his experience with a mock execution he was subjected to himself in 1849--he was sentenced to death by firing squad, but they apparently didn’t intend to go through with it?-- at the hands of the government who saw him as a radical insurrectionist. I liked this book a lot, it is a great novel, but I still much prefer The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment, two “darker” novels where more action takes place. People arguing all the time are a feature of Dostoevsky novels, just brilliant and exhilarating dialogue, but until close to the end, that’s almost all of what the (meandering, weirdly constructed) plot contains. I wanted more dramatic events, though this is still a fine book, engaging and provocative.

The opening of the novel has Myshkin returning from Europe to Leningrad after his stay in an asylum to treat his epilepsy. On his return he makes the acquaintance of Lizaveta Prokofyevna and her three daughters—Alexandra, Adelaida and Aglaya. He also meets a variety of men we might think of as foils, men very different from him, Rogozhin, Teréntyev and Lebedyev. Mikhail Bakhtin writes admirably of Dostoevsky because his novels perform a kind of cultural forum, an exploration of Russian society, and much gets debated here across all these different perspectives.

Ippolít Teréntyev, for instance, is a young nihilist intellectual, so we get to see that aspect of society. He’s the most articulate expression of the atheist challenge to Myshkin’s spirituality. One of the best parts of the book is a debate between them about the existence of God ignited by a viewing of Holbein’s painting of Christ in a tomb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bod...

There’s an interesting rant Myskhin makes, too, against Catholicism, which he thinks has sold out to power and money over spirituality. Myshkin is also interesting about his epilepsy, where he talks about how, in the “ecstatic” moment of the pre-epileptic aura he is able to comprehend the extraordinary phrase (from the Book of Revelation, 10:6): "there shall be time no longer." Some people associate epilepsy with madness, but Myshkin associates it at times with insight.

Myshkin, in exploring all of these ideological and psychological options for living, is highly intelligent, self-aware, intuitive and empathic; in short he is no idiot; he is someone who has thought deeply about human nature, morality and spirituality, and is capable of expressing those thoughts with great clarity. He is like many literary “fools,” who increasingly seem wise and sane as the world seems to go mad. “Love equates people,” Myshkin says, which either sounds naive or inspiring, depending on whether you like the guy or think he is an idiot.

Dostoevsky had once been a young radical and was imprisoned for it. He emerged as more. . . worried about government reprisals for his views, perhaps? Or, more thoughtful about his political choices? But many young readers dismissed him in this book for being conservative, in seeming to endorse a Christian perspective. But I think it may be more accurate to say that Myshkin represents the importance of dialogue, a willingness to listen to all perspectives, always seeking to harmonize those perspectives where possible. Dostoevsky, like his campion Bakhtin, likes to represent his ideal society as polyphony, embracing multiple perspectives on issues. He hated narrow autocratic thinking.

“I am a fool with a heart but no brains, and you are a fool with brains but no heart; and we’re both unhappy, and we both suffer.”

Some of what happens in the novel is a romance. Nastasya Filippovna is torn between Myshkin's compassion and Rogozhin's obsession with her. Myshkin is also attracted to Agláya Ivánovna, Nastasya’s daughter, a simpler, more innocent but also more immature person than her mother (she reminded me sometimes of Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary).

And oh, yeah, a lot of things happen rather quickly at the end, in sort of sensational fashion, things I won’t reveal to you, one of them involving his rivalry with Rogozhin over Nastasya Filippovna. If the grim Crime and Punishment ends with a ray of light, the somewhat lighter The Idiot ends, well, with more clouds, let's just say.

But let me leave you with the optimist, possibly romantic Prince"

“Do you know I don't know how one can walk by a tree and not be happy at the sight of it? How can one talk to a man and not be happy in loving him! Oh, it's only that I'm not able to express it. . . And what beautiful things there are at every step, that even the most hopeless man must feel to be beautiful! Look at a child! Look at God's sunrise! Look at the grass, how it grows! Look at the eyes that gaze at you and love you!”

So sue me, I like the guy, and the book, as did Alice and Eileen (from Beautiful World), so thanks, my fictional friends. It’s a great nineteenth century Russian novel in the grand tradition. You like Big Books you can live in? Here’s one for you that I liked a lot again.

ابله، "کتابِ دیوانگان" است. تصویر داستایفسکی از آدم‌هایش، واقعی‌تر از واقعیت است.
این ویژگی که شخصیت‌ها معمولی و در عین حال اغراق‌آمیز رفتار می‌کنند به کتاب خاصیتی نمایشی می‌بخشد. انگار که کل داستان، یک تئاتر طولانی‌ست.

9th book of 2022

"Let us not forget that the reasons for human actions are usually incalculably more complex and diverse then we tend to explain them later, and are seldom clearly manifest..." Fyodor Dostoevsky The Idiot

The plot of Dostoevsky's The Idiot is one that is quite complicated at times. However, it can be summed it fairly easily. Our main character, Prince Lev Myshkin is a genuinely good person, one who cares about the misfortunes of others, and treats all that he meets with the same grace and respect he would show a king. Our cast of supporting characters take these qualities and twist them. Instead of viewing the prince as a truly good person, they turn the tables and use these examples of his goodness as fodder for their argument that he is unintelligent, and an idiot, from which the title of the novel is born.

The events of the plot circle this concept, with the prince responding in certain ways that cause the cast of characters to set the blame on him, the "idiot" prince. Many throughout the story also take advantage of the prince, as well as purposefully putting him in situations were they know his good nature will end up hurting him in the end.

I have painted a rather grim picture of this novel I know realize. However, let me be clear, this novel is quite funny and charming in parts, as well as being stark and cruelly realistic in others.

I highly enjoyed this masterful work, and give it my highest recommendation. Five stars.

Bilo je vremena, uvijek je bilo za sve vremena i sve je moralo doći s vremenom i po redu.

Ono što mi se svidjelo kada je u pitanju roman Idiot jeste isključivanje pukog gomilanja statičnih opisa kakvim znaju biti podvrgnuti nešto opširniji romani. Umjesto toga ovaj roman njeguje debatno-dijalošku formu, sa predivnim unutrašnjim replikama koje dodatno daju na dinamici i čvrstini same fabule. Pisac je izgleda opčinjen polemičkim narativom. Ona sačinjava suštinski dio saznanja o svijetu i o stvarima kojima je čovjek izložen. Ti razgovori nisu mehanički, vođeni iz puke razonode, nego se iz ruku protivnika izvlači i posljednji argument. A jedan od tih ako ne i najvažnijih argumenata se ogleda u tome da nauka i razum ne rješavaju krucijalne, pa i uopšte probleme čovječanstva. Tako na jednom mjestu pisac kaže: ,,Same željezničke pruge neće pomutiti izvore života, nego je sve to u cijelini prokleto...”

Dostojevski polazi od toga da ljudi od nauke, plate, kredita, industrije, zadovoljavaju samo svoje lične i materijalne potrebe, a ne i potrebe društva u cjelini. On je bešćutno neposredan. Njegova neposrednost se možda najbolje primjećuje u kritici programa za postizanje ljudskog blagostanja kada na jednom mjestu pominje ,,prijatelje čovječanstva” između ostalog i engleskog ekonomistu Roberta Tomasa Maltusa. Ljudska istorija je sve samo ne razumna i svo ono djelovanje u njoj bez moralne potpore, čovjeka baca u niskost i efemernost. Piščev knez Miškin i pored svojih mana i nedostataka koji su dakako vidljivi, jeste jagnje među vukovima (čast izuzecima poput Kostje Lebedeva, na primjer). Naizgled sa nerazumnim ponašanjem, idiot sa kojim planeri i zavjerenici ostvaruju sopstvene ciljeve. Neukaljan pohlepnošču i plahovitošću. Po mišljenju autora čovjek je biće koje voli proces postizanja cilja, ali nikako i sam cilj. Tu jasno iznosi primjer Kolumba i njegovog otkrića, pronicljiv pokazatelj sa kojim su mnogi upoznati i sa kojim se mogu povezati.

Leon s’en va, Leon s’en va pour toujours! Lav odlazi, Lav odlazi zauvijek!

ابله رو گذاشته بودم به عنوان حسن ختامی از کتاب های داستایوفسکی که برای امسال میخونم .
در لحظه اول دیدن حجمش شما رو میترسونه پس وقتی سراغش برید که حوصله اش رو داشته باشید چون به نظرم این کتابم مثل بقیه کتاب های داستایوسکی جوریه که نباید زیاد بین خوندنش فاصله بیوفته وگرنه تعدد کارکترهای کتاب گیج تون میکنه و روال داستان از دستتون در میره .
جایی خوندم کتابی که نوشتنش ماه ها طول میکشه قطعا خوندنش هم هفته ها زمان میخواد ، پس صبور باشید و قدم به قدم با پرنس میشکین ساده دل ما جلو بیایید . یادتون نره کتاب چهار بخش داره بخش اول واخرش. بی نظیر و کش دار بود اما دو بخش میانی به نظرم صرفه اقتصادی داشته و زیادی کش اومده ، هرچند که در مجموع خوندنش برام از لذت بخش ترین ها بود ولی یه جاهایی هم خسته شده بودم .
بازم با این وجود پیشنهاد میکنم داستان مردی که ابدا کودن نیست ولی به دلیل فرهنگ متفاوتی که از مردم زمانه خودش داره مورد تمسخر واقع میشه همراه بشید و بذارید سیر داستان های عاطفی و اجتماعیش شما رو توی خودش حل کنه

The best novel of all time written by the best author of all time. Full stop.

(I do not know how to review this one)

کتابای داستایفسکی برای من عین یه دریاست که موجاش جنایت و مکافات هستن و برادران کارامازوف... کتاب ابله هم برای من عین پیوستگیهای آروم بین دو موج. معمولا کتابی که دوست نداشته باشم همون وسط ول میکنم و میرم پی یه کتاب دیگه. اما این کتاب با اینکه حجیم بود خیلی راحت تونستم تا آخر ازش لذت ببرم. فقط بخش پایانی داستان بیش از حد شوکه ام کرد. البته نه از نوع شوک های مثبت که آدم لبخندی به لب میگیره و میگه وای که این نویسنده عجب پدرسوخته ای بوده...بلکه از اون نوع که آدم میگه این چرا اینجوری کرد؟

چقدر عالی بود. یکی از بهترین رمان‌هایی که امسال خواندم. داستایوسکی نابغه همیشه باعث بهت و حیرت من می‌شود. از تعداد صفحات زیاد آن نترسید و اگر به نویسندگان روس علاقه‌مند هستید حتماً آن را بخوانید. ترجمه حبیبی محشر بود. چند فیلم اقتباس شده از این رمان و چند فیلم هم با الهام از آن ساخته شده است. من به خاطر علاقه وافر به کوروساوا اقتباس او را دیدم، اگر علاقه‌مند بودید پس از مطالعه‌ی کتاب آن را ببینید.
The idiot (1951) 7.3 Kurosawa
The idiot (1958) 7.6 Ivan Pyryev
و در پایان
زنده باد داستایوسکی
زنده باد کوروساوا
و زنده باد سروش حبیبی
********************************************************************************
این اهانت است به روح انسان، و غیر از این هیچ نیست! دین به ما می‌گوید: "نکش!" ولی انسانی را می‌کشند چون آدم کشته! این که نمی‌شود! من این صحنه را یک ماه پیش دیدم و تا امروز هنوز آن را جلو چشم دارم. ص38 کتاب
حقیقت این است که از معاشرت با آدم‌بزرگ‌ها خوشم نمی‌آید. این چیزی است که خودم مدت‌هاست فهمیده‌ام. علتش هم این است که نمی‌توانم با آن‌ها سر کنم. ص 121 کتاب
من پول می‌خواهم. می‌دانید اگر پول داشته باشم دیگر کسی مرا یک آدم عادی نمی‌شمارد. آن وقت من از هر جهت برجسته و غیر از دیگران می‌شوم. پول از این جهت از همه چیز حقیرتر و نفرت‌انگیزتر است که حتی آدم را صاحب ذوق می‌کند و تا دنیا دنیاست همین خواهد بود. ص 203 کتاب
عادت به راحت و تجمل، به آسانی انسان را مبتلا می‌کند و در بند می‌کشد و چون تجمل کم‌کم به صورت ضرورت درآمد خلاصی از بند آن بسیار دشوار است. ص222 کتاب
خوشحالی یک مادر وقتی اولین لبخند طفلش را می‌بیند مثل خوشحالی خداست وقتی که از آن بالای آسمانش گناهکاری را می‌بیند که پشیمان شده و از سر صدق بخشایش می‌خواهد. ص 357 کتاب
همدردی بزرگ‌ترین و شاید یگانه قانون وجود برای تمامی بشریت است. ص 372 کتاب
"ولی طبیعت به ریش ما می‌خندد." ناگهان با هیجان و حرارت بسیار گفت: "برای چه بهترین موجودات را خلق می‌کند تا بعد به ریش‌شان بخندد؟ مگر نکرده؟ تنها مخلوقی را که همه به کمالش اعتراف می‌کردند آفرید و بعد از آنکه او را به همه شناساند حرف‌هایی را بر زبانش گذاشت که خون‌ جاری کرد. آن‌قدر خون جاری شد که اگر همزمان ریخته شده بود مردم به یقین در آن غرق شده بودند. ص 476 کتاب
ناگهان اشتیاق عجیبی احساس کرد که همه چیز را همین جا رها کند و خود به همان جایی برود که از آن آمده بود، و برود به جایی، هرچه دورتر بهتر، جایی دورافتاده و فوراً برود، بی خداحافظی با کسی. احساس می‌کرد که اگر، ولو چند روز دیگر، آنجا بماند به داخل این دنیا کشیده می‌شود و بی‌بازگشت. ص 493 کتاب
در کشور ما اگر دستت به جایی بند نباشد و پشتیبان‌های متنفذ نداشته باشی تبار کهن به کاری نمی‌آید. ص 528 کتاب
کهنه‌کارترین جانی که دیگر اصلاح شدنی نیست، هر چه باشد می‌داند که "جانی" است، و گرچه از کاری که کرده پشیمان نیست، پیش وجدان خود می‌داند که کار زشتی کرده است، و همه‌ی آن‌ها همین طورند. ص 544 کتاب
همه شراب در سر دارند، آن هم شامپانی و ظاهراً تازه هم شروع نکرده‌اند، زیرا بسیاری از این شب‌زنده‌داران از آن آب سرد آتشین به شوری شیرین آمده بودند. ص 589 کتاب
غریزه‌ی تباه سازی خود و غریزه‌ی بقا در وجود آدم‌ها به یک اندازه نیرومند است. تسلط شیطان و سلطنت ایمان، تا ابد، یا بگوییم تا زمانی که ما نمی‌دانیم کی خواهد رسید، با هم برابرند. ص 601 کتاب
اطمینان داشته باشید که خوشبختی کریستف کلمب زمانی نبود که آمریکا را کشف کرد بلکه زمانی خوشبخت بود که می‌کوشید آن را کشف کند... اینجا صحبت زندگی است. فقط زندگی. صحبت تلاش در کشف زندگی است و نه در کشف آن. ص 602 کتاب
صحبت یک زندگی است و راهی بی‌نهایت شاخه شاخه که اسرار آن هرچه هست بر ما پوشیده است. بهترین شطرنج بازان، تواناترین و تیزهوش‌ترین‌شان بیش از چند حرکت را نمی‌توانند از پیش حساب کنند. کار یک شطرنج باز فرانسوی را که می‌توانست تا ده حرکت خود را پیش‌بینی کند اعجاز شمرده‌اند. حال آنکه چه بی‌شمارند حرکت‌های ممکن، که ما از آن‌ها بی‌اطلاعیم. شما با پاشیدن بذر خود و بذل نیکی به هر شکلی که باشد جزئی از خود را به دیگری می‌بخشید و جزئی از دیگری را در خود می‌پذیرید. ص 627 کتاب
ظرافت احساس و عزت نفس از دل آدم سرچشمه می‌گیرد و چیزی نیست که معلم رقص به کسی تعلیم بدهد. ص 700 کتاب
آدم نمی‌تواند مظهر کمال را دوست داشته باشد. آدم در برابر صورت کمال فقط می‌تواند محو تماشا باشد. ص 724 کتاب
در حقیقت هیچ چیز ناراحت کننده‌تر از این نیست که آدم مثلاً ثروتمند و خوشنام و باشعور و خوش صورت و حتی پسندیده سیرت باشد و تحصیلاتش هم بد نباشد و در عین حال هیچ قریحه‌ای، اصالتی، کیفیتی غیرعادی ولو در خور نیشخند، هیچ فکر اصیلی که از ذهن خودش جوشیده باشد نداشته باشد و از هر جهت مثل دیگران باشد! ثروتمند هستی اما روتشیلد نیستی. خانواده‌ات خوشنام است اما هرگز با هیچ کار درخشانی نمایان نشده است. صورتت قشنگ است اما جذاب نیست. تحصیلات خوبی کرده‌ای اما نمی‌توانی از آن بهره‌ای برداری. باهوش و فهمیده‌ای اما فکر بکری هرگز در ذهنت پیدا نمی‌شود. بد کسی را نمی‌خواهی اما خیری هم به کسی نمی‌رسانی، از هر نظر که فکر کنی نه بویی و نه خاصیتی! ص 736 کتاب
بعضی وقت‌ها وضع طوری است که انسان مجاز است که پل‌های پشت سر خود را خراب کند و دیگر به خانه باز نیاید. ص 891 کتاب

ابله یک نشانه ی شگفت برای من بود و با الهام عجیبی که بر روحم تاباند نگرشی را برایم به ارمغان آورد که" روح نویسنده با دوستدارانش همراهی می کند"

On the first day of 2018, I spent it with a fever. I slept too much during the day and couldn't fall asleep at night. I lay in bed reading until dawn, surprisingly finishing half of this book. When I finally turned off the light and lay in bed, the fever medicine, Dostoevsky, and the coffee I had in the morning all tangled in my mind, creating a chaotic dream.

Frankly speaking, Dostoevsky’s books are not suitable to be read at the pace of your average novels because they are too intense and dense. The best approach is to read a bit, put it down, do something else, and then come back to it. This time, I read too quickly, and it felt like a massive steel block forcefully shoved into my brain, which I couldn't digest. So, I decided to finish the second half and then read a couple of light books to balance things out.

The reason I read so quickly was that I simply couldn't put it down. Many think that classics are meant for self - cultivation and are described as useful rather than enjoyable. But in reality, any great work is, first and foremost, a good read. It all depends on whether your standard of what is "good" has improved.

For Dostoevsky, I don't want to discuss his depth, his philosophy, or his religious sentiments, as those have already been thoroughly analyzed. I want to say that his books are genuinely enjoyable. Take this book for example. I found that Dostoevsky is like a director who excels at orchestrating group scenes, mastering layers, rhythm, character development, and scene coordination perfectly. There are individual highlights without overall chaos. One of my hobbies in watching movies is enjoying group scenes, but I know it's challenging to pull off well. Most fail miserably. For a novelist, managing more than 4 characters in a single scene is difficult because novels aren't plays. However, in the chapter set in Lebedev's villa, I counted 19 characters. Each one is distinct, useful, and has their thoughts, making it a thrilling and fulfilling read.

I felt dizzy but incredibly excited because I sensed that its internal structure and rhythm were clear, warranting a reread or even multiple rereads to understand Dostoevsky’s techniques, knowing I could never replicate them. Such complex structures in Asian hands are usually treated with broad strokes, passing over masses of people with a few words, while Dostoevsky dares to depict every brick meticulously. You think you've seen enough, but then he surprises you further. Just when your mind is entirely absorbed in discussions about the world, faith, and soul, amid chaotic debates, the next speaker, a dying young man, says, "Do you know I came here to see the trees?" He also says, "When you were leaving, I suddenly thought: these people are here now, but they will never be here again. The same goes for the trees - only a brick wall will remain, the red brick wall of Meyer’s house."

After all the heavy discussions on soul, life, and truth, such a light statement combined with the preceding weighty words hits me profoundly. This boy is the nihilist Dostoevsky criticizes. At that moment, I thought I am the nihilist he critiques. Although I love discussions on life's major issues, in the end, I still casually look at trees. But that's Dostoevsky’s charm. He is a powerful advocate for religion. I won't convert, but I still like him because he also understands nihilists like me. He criticizes us not out of ignorance but out of disagreement. Knowing is precious, and disagreement doesn't matter.

Even among the 19 ocharacters, some are considered despicable, yet you feel they have a complete worldview and philosophy. They still ponder life and social issues. Even the most vile characters discuss the soul and don't avoid problems. They may be swindlers or ugly, but they aren't shallow or superficial. You never feel they are being pretentious. It seems like Russians are naturally suited to casually discuss the soul over dinner, which feels extravagant, while Chinese, British, or other people discussing the same topics often feel awkward and somewhat ridiculous.

Even Dostoevsky’s illains are more profound than the people around us in real life, just like any of Agatha Christie’s murderers are more elegant and poised than the people we know.

For us, it's neither real nor perfect, but it's absolutely captivating. That's the magical power bestowed by God.

4.6 / atars

Ένα ολόκληρο νέο σύμπαν ορίζει ο Ντοστογιέφσκι στον ''Ηλίθιο'', ψυχογραφώντας λεπτομερώς κάθε πρόσωπο, με δυνατό του όπλο την στρωτή γλώσσα, την αφηγηματική του δεινότητα και την ικανότητά του να κατανοεί την ανθρώπινη φύση.

Μοναδικά ολοκληρωμένοι χαρακτήρες που προσεγγίζονται σφαιρικά και που ο καθένας έχει τα καλά και τα κακά του, τα πάθη και τα λάθη του, τις αμαρτίες και τις αδυναμίες του …
Όλα αυτά, τα κουβαλάει στις πλάτες του, ματώνει για αυτά (ως άλλος Χριστός) και τα εξαγνίζει η καλοσυνάτη μορφή του Πρίγκιπα Μισκιν, που αγαπάει ανιδιοτελώς, συγχωράει ανυστερόβουλα και είναι απαλλαγμένος από κάθε εγωισμό και μικροπρέπεια. Έχει καρδιά μικρού παιδιού, για αυτό και λογίζεται ηλίθιος στον ''πεφωτισμένο'' κόσμο των ενηλίκων.

‘’Ας μην ξεχνάμε πως οι αιτίες των πράξεων των ανθρώπων είναι συνήθως πολύ πιο πολύπλοκες και ποικίλες απ’ ότι τις εξηγούμε εμείς εκ των υστέρων, και σπάνια διαγράφονται με σαφήνεια’’.

Ο συγγραφέας έχει δώσει στον πρίγκιπα Μισκιν πολλά δικά του, αυτοβιογραφικά στοιχεία: την επιληψία απ’ την οποία και ο ίδιος έπασχε, πολιτικές, κοινωνικές και θρησκευτικές απόψεις, αλλά και εμπειρίες του, όπως για παράδειγμα τον πίνακα του Χολμπάιν που όντως ο Ντοστογιέφσκι είχε δει και όντως τον είχε τόσο συγκλονίσει. Ή όπως όταν είχε καταδικαστεί σε θάνατο και την τελευταία στιγμή του δόθηκε χάρη. Στις σελίδες 33 - 35, ένα από τα λατρεμένα μου σημεία, όπου ο συγγραφέας διατυπώνει την άποψή του για τη θανατική ποινή περιγράφοντας πόσο ψυχοφθόρος, σκληρός και απάνθρωπος είναι ο θάνατος όταν τον επισφραγίζει η μη αναστρεψιμότητα μιας δικαστικής απόφασης.

Σε συζήτηση του πρίγκιπα με τον Ραγκόζιν περί θρησκείας:
‘’ Ο ένας δεν πιστεύει καθόλου στο Θεό και ο άλλος Τον πιστεύει τόσο πολύ, που ακόμα και τους ανθρώπους τους σφάζει προσευχόμενος’’ !!!

Άλλο τρομερό σημείο, η συνομιλία του πρίγκιπα Μισκιν με τον Ραγκοζιν, στο σπίτι του δεύτερου, κάτω από τον πίνακα του Χολμπάιν που απεικονίζει την Αποκαθήλωση, όπου το σώμα και το πρόσωπο του Χριστού παρουσιάζονται καταβασανισμένα. Ο πρίγκιπας λέει:
‘’Μα απ’ αυτόν τον πίνακα μπορεί να χάσει κα��είς και την πίστη του ακόμα!’’.

Σκέψη που ο Ντοστογιέφσκι ολοκληρώνει πολύ αργότερα στο έργο (σελ. 539), όταν μέσα από τα λόγια του Ιππολυτου λέει:
‘’Αν είναι τόσο φριχτός ο θάνατος κι αν είναι τόσο ισχυροί οι νόμοι της φύσεως, πώς θα μπορέσει κανείς να τους υπερνικήσει; Πώς να τους υπερνικήσει όταν δεν τους νίκησε ακόμα και Εκείνος που η φύση υποτασσόταν μπροστά του; Εκείνος που φώναξε ‘’Νεανίσκε εγέρθητι!’’ και ο μικρός σηκώθηκε; Εκείνος που είπε ‘’Λάζαρε, δεύρο έξω!’’, κι αναστήθηκε ο νεκρός’’.

Τι να πει κανείς για την απολογία του Ιππολυτου και τα όσα λέει περί Θείας Πρόνοιας; Για μένα ένας απ’ τους πιο ενδιαφέροντες χαρακτήρες του έργου. Πώς αντιδρά, τι σκέφτεται, τι αισθάνεται ένας άνθρωπος που γνωρίζει πως σύντομα θα πεθάνει;
‘’Η φύση έχει περιορίσει σε τέτοιο βαθμό τη δραστηριότητά μου με τις τρείς εβδομάδες που μου δίνει προθεσμία, ώστε η αυτοκτονία είναι ίσως το μόνο έργο που μπορώ να προλάβω ν’ αρχίσω και να τελειώσω με δική μου θέληση’’.

Και όλα αυτά για να έρθει να σε μαστιγώσει το επικό αυτό τέλος… Μόνο ένα τέτοιο τέλος θα άξιζε σε ένα τέτοιο βιβλίο!
Επίσης αγάπησα τη Ναστάσια Φιλίπποβνα, υπέροχος χαρακτήρας αληθινής γυναίκας και όχι κοριτσάκι σαν την Αγλαΐα. Απ’ την άλλη πόνεσα και συμπάθησα πολύ και τον Ραγκόζιν….

Βιβλίο για πολλές αναγνώσεις, για πολλή υπογράμμιση, για πολλές σκέψεις και συζητήσεις... Ειλικρινά μεγαλειώδες!