The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Post 005)

I finally finished this today. I had gotten distracted by the blogathon, comics that needed reviewing, and weekends spent elsewhere than my apartment. I jumped back in last night for the chapter in Part IV that actually made the novel worthwhile after a lot of tedium and concern with the manners and games played by the social class depicted here. Our dear 'idiot' Myshkin is in love with Aglaia and she seems to be with him... except when she insists she isn't, which is a lot. I found all of that terribly frustrating and dull. But, that could be due to my lack of patience with that sort of bullshit. I don't play games when it comes to women and don't tolerate it when they play games with me. Reading about that sort of thing leaves me cold.

Then again, that's all these people do. They say one thing while thinking another and quickly turn about and do the opposite while meaning a third thing. They're all people of whims and that gets tiresome, because there's no consistency beyond there being no consistency.

That said, the final 50-60 pages of the novel are rather strong. Where it takes a turn is Aglaia taking Myshkin to Nastasya's to hash out the weird love/hate thing going on. Dostoevsky has the two men involved stand off to the side, neither sure what will happen, while the women trade barbs and sarcastic comments, trying to see what's going on with Myshkin. In the end, Myshkin chooses Nastasya in an odd scene that's absolutely heartbreaking and powerful. It's a very cinematic piece of writing by Dostoevsky. I could see it happen ala a Leone showdown.

Part of me wishes the novel ended there. One of the areas I've always had problems with Dostoevsky is his endings. Crime and Punishment's epilogue is absolutely awful. The same happens here even though it's three more chapters plus an epilogue/conclusion chapter. I think it would have been more powerful to end on Myshkin choosing the crazed Nastasya over the... well, equally crazed Aglaia. Everything that came after was anticlimactic despite its drama. It couldn't match Myshkin having to choose. His wedding to Nastasya plays out as you expect and what happens after is a little surprising, but doesn't lead anywhere interesting.

I'm not sure what I think about this novel. I really liked the first part and one chapter of the fourth, but the rest... granted, that great chapter from Part IV is great in part because of the build-up of tedium and such. You can't just make great drama happen, it needs the proper foundation. Still... this novel was disappointing. And I've enjoyed most of the Dostoevsky I've read. The Double was a little obvious and some of the short stories I've read haven't blown my mind, but Crime and Punishment and Devils were both fantastic.

I think the problem is that Dostoevsky tried to satirise this class of people. The wealthy folk who spend their days visiting one another and playing these little games. That they lead to tragedy is interesting, I suppose, but you have to wade through the crap far too much. Maybe the lesson is that, yes, they're awful, but Myshkin likes them and sees their goodness... except he's ruined by them. By all of them. There's a sense that he had to do what he did, because of all of them. Because they so looked down upon Nastasya, he had to go to her and redeem her. She was his Mary Magdaline...

I can see why this is one of Dostoevsky's ignored/less favoured works. Maybe when I return to it years from now, I'll appreciate it more. Maybe I'll research it and find the 'best' translation and see if that helps. For now, I'm moving on to the "Legion of Fire" Babylon 5 trilogy by Peter David. A nice trio of light read books before getting into something heavy again.

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Post 004)

Two weeks later, I've finally finished the third part of The Idiot. I was delayed a little because of Imperial Bedrooms and another weekend away where I didn't read a whole lot. Also, like the second part of this book, the third wasn't that great -- or that interesting. I'm really disappointed given the strength of the first part of the novel. Part I had a strong focus and worked as a whole, while the second and third parts have been meandering and don't work by themselves. They seem like Dostoevsky hit a certain page/word count and said "Okay, that does it for this part," much like he does with chapters. More than that, it seems like he only really had plans for the first part and just kept on going. There are some really strong moments here and there, but it's so plodding in other places as characters talk and talk and talk and say nothing. Yes, it's meant to be a bit of a satire of this level of society, but, fuck, I get it already.

In this part... nothing really happens. There are some small scandals that go nowhere and Ippolit, an 18-year old dying of consumption, spends three or four chapters reading this long preface to a suicide attempt that is really just a lot of blather. I did like the idea of Dostoevsky having a character say he's going to kill himself rather than die of a terminal illness and have almost everyone scoff and mock him for it, not believing he'll go through with it.

Prince Myshkin continues to be an interesting character, but still quite passive. He is alternatively loved and scorned by characters as some see him for the kind, Christ-like person he is, while others dismiss him as an 'idiot' (most do both at one point or another). There's some dancing around his relationship with Nastasya and also with Aglaia, the youngest daughter of a family he's acquainted with... except she's not quite right, much like Nastasya, changing moods midsentence. She goes from hating to loving to tolerating to liking to praising to scorning Myshkin and he goes along with it all because he's that kind of guy.

I honestly have no idea where this book is going. I don't know what it's about really. This book is definitely bloated and requires some editing down into a manageable form. Then again, maybe the fourth part will bring it all together and cause me to reassess what's come already. Though, god help me if Lebedyev shows up much more, because he is such an annoying character. The manner in which he speaks is so meaningless and filled with empty blather.

Normally, I don't get so caught up in characters, preferring to examine style and structure, but I can't see much of the latter. That's my big problem with what's here. Stylistically, it's typical Dostoevsky and it works better in some parts than others. He introduces some potential plotlines only to discard them -- his characters show little consistency in their actions at times -- Myshkin can barely speak at times...

Despite not loving the past, oh, 300 pages, I am looking forward to the last 150 to see what Dostoevsky does with this cast of characters and how it all comes together.

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Post 003)

This weekend, Michelle and I were at a campground for a few days of wedding stuff for her best friend. It was a pretty good time -- much better than I thought it would be. On Saturday (the day of the wedding), there was some down time with Michelle off getting her hair and make-up done with the bride, so I managed to finish Part II of The Idiot.

The second part of the novel was rougher going than the first part. While the first part had a nice contrast of the sweet, decent Myshkin with the craziness of everyone else, it was also grounded by his lack of understanding of everything. He understood Russian society a little, but living abroad, he wasn't completely familiar with everyone else. In the second part, he's much more familiar and that lack of essential innocence just makes the second part a chore at times since it's just bullshit. People talking bullshit and then talking more bullshit. Fuck, I hate these people. They're shallow, vapid, pretentious-yet-stupid, and driven by unknown/unseen passions that cause them to act like fools.

This part picks up six months after the end of the first part. Myshkin has received a large inheritance, but not as large as everyone thinks. Because of his simple nature, he's taken advantage of by swindlers somewhat, but he also doesn't mind too much since he is so innocent and wants to help people so much. It's an interesting complexity, one that leads to misunderstandings, because people don't know how to react to him. Some, in this part, begin to accuse him of not being as simple/nice as he seems, that it's all a ruse so he can get what he wants without appearing rude or cruel. Of course, it isn't a ruse -- he's genuinely a sweet, caring, sensitive man.

There were two parts in this section of the novel that stood out as particularly interesting.

The first was the apparent dismissmal of the illegitimate son of his benefactor by Myshkin. His time abroad to get well was funded by a rich aristocrat and his bastard son has apparently shown up only for Myshkin to dismiss him out of hand. It seems out of character -- and it is, because that's not how it happened at all. Things are made worse by a newspaper article written by one of the son's friends that is very biased and is filled with lies. Myshkin had a friend investigate and discovered that the son isn't really the artistocrat's son at all -- but that he had good reason to think it true and wasn't trying to scam Myshkin; he was simply mistaken. Myshkin, despite this, still wants to give the 'son' 10,000 rubels since he sees himself in the man, who also stutters and is socially awkward. But, as a matter of pride, the 'son' refuses.

What stood out was how disagreeable the friends of the 'son' were. No matter what Myshkin said, they would get offended or try to take issue with it. They don't understand Myshkin or see that's genuinely trying to do the right thing, not thinking of himself at all. He doesn't like to be slandered, but he's more concerned with the truth and with helping others. There's a bit where a wealthy woman who is visiting with her family mentions that despite their actions, Myshkin will go to them the next day and try to persuade them to reconsider his offer of the money, that he will press forward with helping them, especially the 'son' and Myshkin says of course he will, leaving her shocked and annoyed.

The other part is a passage where Myshkin is thinking. He considers going away, leaving all of these people behind, just going somewhere and living his own life, knowing that, if he stays, he'll just get sucked in more. These are people who live for scandal and get offended at the smallest of offences, so bored out of their minds that there isn't anything else but these small, petty things. And Myshkin is better than that -- something he senses, but he doesn't leave. For whatever reason, he doesn't save himself and you just know it's going to end poorly for him.

Despite these two things that I enjoyed, a large chunk of this part is tedious in its attention to the small, petty bullshit. The first part had those elements, but they were more interesting. Dostoevsky just isn't as entertaining here. It all lends itself to that second section where you want Myshkin to leave, because you're just so tired of these stupid, small people, but the actual reading is a little dry and dull.

Two parts down, two to go.

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Post 002)

I have finished Part I of The Idiot.

The first thing I thought of when I finished it was that Dostoevsky could have stopped there and he would have had a nice little novella/short novel. While he could (and did) continue, the story told there was self-contained enough that I don't think anyone would have been too pissed off if things didn't go any further. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows. I do like the concept of each part being self-contained enough that it could function as its own work. I'm sure that that helped serialisation.

It's obvious that The Idiot was written for serialisation with each chapter roughly 10 pages long. Some more, some less, but always around ten pages. After all, there are 16 chapters in Part I and the page it ends on? 164. Nice and tidy. Who says that great writers can't work within limitations and do it for the money?

The second thing I thought of when I finished Part I was that this is some crazy-assed book. The second half of the part basically focuses on Nastasya Filippovna, a young woman whose birthday it is. She will inform a man by the name of Ganya if she'll marry him that evening. Meanwhile, Rogozhin has arrived back in town (on the same train as Myshkin at the beginning of the novel) to claim a large inheritence (1.4 million rupels) and also claim her as his bride since he's loved her for quite some time. Myshkin also loves her -- though we're not sure of that until close to the end. Prince Myshkin is a kindhearted man, a speaker of truths, and not quite the idiot that people think of him.

The end of Part I basically has Nastasya Filippovna turn Ganya down because Myshkin says she shouldn't marry him (as he actually hates her and is only doing it for the 75,000 rupels that the guy she's been a mistress to is putting up to be rid of her. Rogozhin and his gang show up drunk with 100,000 rupels that he said he'd raise and bring in cash to secure her as his bride, but she turns him down when Myshkin says that he would love her no matter what -- even if they were poor. But, she recognises that she is corrupt and a whore, so she runs off with Rogozhin, first tossing his roll of money into the fire to see if Ganya would reach in and get it -- and when he doesn't, she removes it with tongs (it was wrapped in newspaper, so the notes weren't harmed) and gives it to him.

Crazy fucking book.

What strikes me about Dostoevsky's writing here is that characters don't act like people. He's obviously not going for realism but a heightened reality to explore concepts of morality, philosophy, and social interaction. In some ways, it reminds me of the work of Larry David with Myshkin acting very much the part of David/Costanza, but in a noble fashion. He cuts through the bullshit of society and its rules because he cares not for pretense and lies. He shows up to the party uninvited because he needs to speak with Nastasya Filippovna. As the novel progresses, he's revealed himself more and more understanding of what's happening around him. He genuinely seems like the happy idiot at the beginning, but, by the end, he isn't a simpleton, he's a man who sees things for what they are. Who cares if Nastasya Filippovna has had sex? He loves her and respects her... that's all that matters. Of course, he barely knows her, but that doesn't seem to stop people in this world.

One thing I was disappointed about was a game they played at the party where people would tell the worst things they've ever done. It's hard to say if people would be honest, but we never got to Myshkin. I was curious what he would say. What's the worst thing he's done?

I'm really enjoying this book. It's hard to speak to some of the larger ideas and themes since they'll become more apparent as I move through the rest of it -- still three parts and... 414 pages to go.

Before reading this, I was worried about the translation. The edition I have (the picture I'm using for these posts) was bought very cheaply (new!). I got it to put an order from Chapters beyond the $39 mark for free shipping and since it's so cheap, I worried that the translation would be awful. I was even more worried when there wasn't any indication as to who translated it. No translator is listed, which is odd. But, so far, it's been very readable and smooth going. I obviously can't speak to how accurate it all is or if it's a truly good/bad translation, but that it reads smoothly and not like a translation is a good sign usually. There's been maybe one or two instances where the phrasing was stranger than normal, but that happens with the best translations at times.

On to Part II...

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Post 001)

Third year of university? Was that when I first read Dostoevsky? Maybe it was second year. Or the summer between perhaps. It doesn't actually matter. It hasn't been that long and I haven't exactly read him extensively. I've read four novels and some short stories. Not exactly an expert on the man or his work. The thing about Dostoevsky is that you need to be in the mood for long reads, lots of Russian names, and even more Russian nicknames. It requires some dedication, not just casual reading. It took me three tries before I made it past page 50 of Devils (or The Possessed or Demons or whatever title the translator/publisher decided to use for its edition of the novel) and, when I did make it past page 50, I spent a solid week reading the book. Spending a good six hours a day at minimum reading and trying to keep it all in my head. But, it's worth it. I'm not sure how much I'll write about The Idiot, which I've read around 70 pages of so far. But, I'd like to start with what I've read of Dostoevsky so far...

The first book of his I read was Notes from the Underground, which was in an edition with The Double as well. I read them both together. Notes was disturbing. I liked the structure of laying out a series of ideas, concepts, beliefs, and arguments before delivering a short story to complement them. Interesting way to go about writing a book and also showing where Dostoevsky was at the time: not entirely ready to merge the two. In a sense, it's almost like a rough layout of what he often tries to accomplish in his work: the expression of philosophical, psychological, spiritual, and political ideas through narrative. The second part of the book isn't divorced from that, but he hadn't fully integrated things yet. The Double was an earlier work that's mostly forgettable, honestly. Not a bad novel where a man is plagued by a double that takes everything he has, driving him to madness. It ends with you wondering if there ever was the other man at all. You've no doubt seen stories like it since.

Crime and Punishment is as good and worthwhile as everyone says it is. A man convincing himself of the rightness -- of the nobility -- of killing another person... and learning that maybe he wasn't so certain about it. If you've never read it, you should -- but skip the epilogue as it's pure bullshit. Trust me on that.

Devils warrants a reread since it's much too large for a single reading. It revolves around various political ideas as a group of revolutionaries prepare for whatever it is that revolutionaries do. Unlike Crime and Punishment, which is very focused on one character, this is very much an ensemble piece. One of the central characters, Stavrogin, is about as horrible a character as you can imagine despite being at the core of the group of conspirators. Things do not happen in obvious ways here and does push a bit too far to the political/philosophical discussion at times to the detriment of the plot, but Dostoevsky does some great character work.

Actually, while reading Devils, I thought it would make a fantastic mini-series. Each chapter has the right amount of plot to work as a 45-minute-to-hour episode. And the censored chapter, "At Tikhon's" is brilliant.

I've also read several short stories, but only "White Nights" stands out. A nameless narrator who is lonely and cannot stop thinking. In many ways, Dostoevsky wrote a lot about the idea of the young man who has ideals or dreams that don't match with Russian society. The sad, lonely, pathetic life of the young man if you will. None of his central characters fit in or seem content with the world around them. Often, this leads to anti-social activities such as murder or revolution or smaller crimes.

The Idiot also contains a character like that, Myshkin, is the eopnymous 'idiot,' but his ailment is one where he doesn't overthink things, he relies on feelings -- he thinks with his heart instead of his brain, basically. While I'm not far in, he makes for an interesting contrast to other Dostoevsky protagonists that I've encountered. He's eager to talk, friendly and without any pretense. I read a chapter today where he tells a story of the village he'd stayed in for the past several years, abroad to treat his ailment and 'fits.' There, a young woman was seduced by a French merchant and ran off with him only to return days later, exhausted and hurt from walking back. She's scorned and mocked by the villagers -- treated like a reptile he says. Her mother calls her a disgrace. No one will give her work. Her mother barely feeds her despite her caring for the woman through a sickness that eventually takes her life. At the old woman's funeral, the pastor rails against the daughter, blaming her for her mother's death, turning the whole affair into another excuse to pile on Marie (her name). During this time, Myshkin notes the behaviour of everyone and is sickened by it. He sells a diamond pin and gives Marie the money. Some kids see him being kind to her and, at first, scorn him, too, but they soon begin talking to him and he basically brings them about to his way of thinking, which pisses off the villagers even more. They begin to bring her food and love her the way that Myshkin does (which is a pitiful love, not a romantic one). Eventually, she dies, too...

Myshkin is meant to be a representation of Christ and his ideals and while a little heavyhanded, it works so far. The story has only just begun, so I imagine we'll get plenty of complications -- and probably a lesson about how such ideals cannot work, even in Christian societies.

I also have The Brothers Karamazov, but aren't sure if I'm ready for that one yet. Certain works require a basic level of knowledge -- not just about literature, but about the world, a certain amount of experience, and I'm not sure if I have enough yet. Then again, first reads before you're ready are often good since they get that pesky plot shit out of the way and allow future reads to focus on the language, the subtext, and the larger ideas.

My next post on The Idiot in the coming days perhaps.