Philosophy

“The Idiot” by Fyodor Dostoevsky

I am wary of writing too much in this review lest I spoil  a wonderful read for those yet to become acquainted with it. And also because English Literature was the only O level that I failed, so I have a long held sense of inadequacy when it comes to writing about literature. Though I have of course read this book, which is more than can be said for the set texts of my O level syllabus.

The “Idiot” of the story is not so much an idiot as a rare case of a true innocent. Sent away at an early age to a sanatorium in Switzerland, Prince Myshkin has little to no knowledge of the social etiquette of his native Russian society. He is a man seemingly incapable of a dark thought or an evil deed. When he returns to Russia he knows no one and has nothing. Whilst he is immediately accepted into society he is nonetheless perceived as an idiot and a misfit, but the reader gets a sense that all the other characters in the book have far greater personal failings than that of Myshkin, whilst also being blind to their own idiocies. 

Myshkin, like Doestoevsky himself, suffers from epilepsy, which further singles him out as an oddball, but interestingly is also a life-saver at one point in the story (I see an exciting parallel with my own bipolar disorder (now thankfully under control with minimal input from medication), which I feel almost certainly saved my life in a very similar manner, which leads to interesting thoughts on illness as curse/blessing).

Myshkin becomes embroiled in a love triangle when he falls in love with Nastasya Filippovna after seeing her portrait. Nastsya is a complex character, a woman wronged and consequently damaged who seems incapable of restraining herself from a path of self destruction. She knows that she is capable of cruelty (though this is an acting out of her sense of  injustice over what has happened to her) and fears that she will be a corrupting influence on Myshkin. She is torn between allowing him to love her and her fear of dragging him under her dark influence. She sees Myshkin for what he is, a kind and good man, but cannot bring herself to trust that if she were to give herself to him then she could feel whole again (there are parallels here with people who feel unworthy of the love of Christ and see themselves as irredeemable).

Myskin’s rival, Parfyon Rogozhin, is deeply, madly, troublingly in love with Nastasya. He desires to have her so much that he discounts the fact that she openly does not love him. It is a blind love, the loving of the other being all-consuming.  

There is a secondary romance between two other characters which overlaps with the main triangle. Gavril Ardalionovitch was going to marry Nastasya despite not being in love with her, and Aglaia Ivanova stuggles with her feelings for Myshkin whilst knowing that Gavril is in love with her. 

There is an array of expertly described minor characters, all with interesting flaws. A vodka soaked pathological liar of a general provides some humour. A young nihilist dying of consumption who wishes to make his mark on the world before he departs provides some drama. A fawning verbose widower balances his dubious morality with his generous sociable nature.  They are a group of characters that, like them or not,  you would not feel bored by at a dinner party.

There are some big themes in this book, the nature of “goodness”, love in its different forms, religion, and death. The most disturbing aspect is that Myshkin’s character, as a good person, is shown to be incompatible with the society in which he has to live. He is routinely abused and mocked but is unfailingly compassionate and forgiving.

Dostoevsky introduces the concerns and topics of discussion of the day into the story. Written in 1868, one of these at least is decidedly modern. There is much talk of atheism. The “woman question” is alluded to on several occasions without being fully explained. Of course, if written and set a hundred years later, Nastasya’s situation would have been radically different. I am grateful that women today are not judged so harshly. Today it is easy to start again and leave your history behind, but then your reputation once tarnished was only salvaged (to an extent) by a good marriage. It is this sense of powerlessness that feeds Nastasya’s destructive tendencies.

The only thing I struggled with when reading this book was the Russian names. Everyone has at least three names (Myshkin’s full name being Prince Lyov Nikolayevitch Myshkin) which are used at different times in different situations. If I were to read the book for the first time knowing this I would make a note of these when they are introduced to save having to look back to check you know who is being talked about. The copy I have is the Wordsworth Classic that I got from Amazon for only £1.99. Other versions may have character lists in.

I thoroughly recommend that you read this book for yourself. I am sure it will be one of the very few books that I shall re-read. Right now though I have “The Brothers Karamazov” waiting for me.