Rating: 
Summary: another classic
Review: Dostoyevsky wrote with an understanding of humans that is rarely seen from anyone. His characters might not all be realistic but you can always find truth in each one. This novel takes the completely moral man and contrasts him with characters of vice. Throughout the novel we see that good is never as good as it seems, while evil is simple never at it appears on face value. All I have left to say is that I imagine this novel has the most tragic ending anyone could ever come up with.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Book Ever Written!
Review: Yes! This is clearly the best book ever written by the best author of all time. There's simply no question about it. Dostoevsky was the greatest writer to ever live. Better than Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, and Moliere put together. The Idiot has the philosophical depth of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and the seductive, fast-paced action of Le Carre's Russia House. Is such a thing possible? I didn't think so, but then I read the Idiot. Wow, am I ever glad.I once read that Dostoevsky was an anti-semite whose beliefs added to the atmosphere that would ultimately result in the Soviet abuses of Jews while Tolstoy wrote important tracts defending Jews. Well, after reading the Idiot, all I can say is that that doesn't matter because Dostoevsky is a far, far, far, far more sensitive writer. I really think Dostoevsky is just the best. If you don't believe me just check out my other reviews.
Rating:
Summary: What an infuriating hero! What a glorious book!
Review: I agree with all of the other reviewers: read this book. There were three things from this book which stand out for me. The first is that the English transalation of the title is not entirely accurate. Most people, myself included, think of a very stupid person when we think of an idiot. Myshkin is not an idiot in that sense at all. A more accurate sense of the Russian title would be an extremely naive person. Secondly, near the end of the book, at the ball, one of the characters tells Myshkin that Russians have no moderation in their character. "They can't just convert to Catholicism, they have to become Jesuits," they said. I thought immediately of Lenin and the other Bolsheviks who took power only 35 years after this book was written. They illustrated Dostoyevsky's point. Lastly, while there is much action in this novel, I can't remember any other I've read where the main character is not directly involved. Very little happens due to any direct action by him. Most of the novel he is not doing much of anything but talking, while all the other character are scheming, lying, drinking, fornicating, etc. When he does finally take direct action, it turns out to be disastrous for himself and those closest to him. A truly great book and unlike any other.
Rating: 
Summary: Not his best, but come on!
Review: I never believed that television, particularly MTV, was making us less impatient as readers, but after reading a couple of reviews lamenting that little happens plotwise, I am beginning to change my mind. This books doesn't have fireworks or explosions, but the relationships between characters are simply riveting. I turn the page eagerly waiting to see what will transpire next between Natasya and the Prince, betweem Roghozin and Natasya, between Aglaya and the Prince, between Roghozin and the Prince, and so on. This is a brilliant character study, but it also has terrific plot. If you don't like this, then you probably dislike plays, because that is what this reads like--actors performing on simple but fully realized stage sets. This is definitely not Dostoevsky's best novel, but it far surpasses most other novels being published today. Give it a try. If you love Russian novels, you will certainly enjoy this.
Rating:
Summary: Even A Saint Can Reap Havoc
Review: I came to Dostoevsky through the back door, so to speak. In about 1958 or 1959, a small art theater in Dallas, Texas was showing a movie of THE IDIOT that had been filmed in Russia in 1958, under the direction of Ivan Pyriev, a leading Russian director. How this movie ever got from Russia to Dallas or where it disappeared to after I saw it, I don't know. I do know that it is impossible to find. All this is by way of introduction. This stark, black and white film so fascinated me that I had to read the book. THE IDIOT had such an impact on me that I felt compelled to search out and read everything I could find by and about Dostoevsky. His body of work then led me to many of the other great Russian writers; Tolstoy, Turgenev, Gogol, and, of course, the father of them all, Aleksandr Pushkin. I even discovered some of the "lesser" Russian writers such as Goncharev. In my case, at least, one good book led to years of wonderful reading. THE IDIOT, the book that started it all for me, stands on its own as a wonderful piece of literature. It can be read by itself, or as a part of the body of Dostoevsky's work, or within the framework of great Russian literature. Attempting to determine which book or which of these authors is better is an exercise in futility and, if you'll pardon me, of sophistry. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A good book is a good book is a good book." Dostoevsky did say that THE IDIOT was his favorite of his books. Perhaps that was because of certain biographical aspects of the book. Dostoevsky, like Myshkin, was an epileptic. Myshkin returns to St. Petersburg and its callous society after years of absence during which he underwent medical treatment for his "idiocy." Dostoevsky, in real life, returned to St. Petersburg after a long absence that consisted of his incarceration in Siberia for four years followed by an additional four years of enforced army duty. These are not the only biographical aspects of THE IDIOT. I would not want to be misunderstood, however. Dostoevsky incorporated aspects of his own life into the book but it is not, in any way, a work of fictionalized autobiography. Prince Myshkin, the "idiot" of the title, is as near to being a saint as is possible for a flesh and blood human being. His saintliness is accompanied by naivete. He is naive to such a degree that he cannot anticipate the consequences of his actions. His attempts to do good often reap havoc on those about whom he cares. Because he loves one woman and pities another, he inadvertantly ends up being a destructive force in both their lives. In trying to redeem one, who is essentially unredeemable, he indirectly causes her to be murdered. From the standpoint of pure innocence a case could be made that Myshkin was the model for Jerzy Kosinski's Chauncey Gardener. Dostoevsky is certainly a master of the psychological novel, and THE IDIOT is a novel that delves into the soul of a man. He investigates the impact that a corrupt society has on the soul of an incorruptable man and, conversely, the impact of goodness and spirituality on a corrupt society which is unwilling to be swayed. I wish that I could say that society was improved for having been exposed to Myshkin, but it wasn't changed any more than the wealthy of Rome were changed by their exposure to the early Christian martyrs. THE IDIOT is a book that is well worth reading. It is not necessary to "ease into it" by reading another of his novels first as has been suggested elsewhere on these pages. What is necessary is to bring a thoughtful mind along with you when you sit down to what should be one of the greater reading experiences that may come your way.
Rating:
Summary: A dark, tumultuous, complex work--one of D's greatest.
Review: Dostoevsky, that great tortured and feverish soul, wrote this novel after the onslaught of the Nihilists in Russian arts and letters. He felt he was waging a war against the crude and unfeeling Western materialism of the day; he was battling what he saw as a holy war. While authors like Turgenev and Tolstoy regarded the expanding West with (fairly) open arms, Dostoevsky feared it would cause a religious crisis, where faith in Christ was extinguished and ignorance, vanity, and greed would overcome. This is a towering, exciting novel--perhaps not as great as "Crime & Punishment" or "Brothers Karamazov"--it contains some of his most penetrating insights into religious faith, human compassion, despair, and insanity. Prince Myshkin is of course one of literature's great characters, a Christ-like young man caught up in the treachery of the aristocratic lives of the Yepanchins. The other two main characters, Rogozhin and Nastasya Filippovna, along with Myshkin, form a powerful triangle that, despite their being "off-stage" for much of the novel, drive this novel to its tragic, unavoidable climax. I do not, however, recommend this book to first time Dostoevsky readers; that should be "Notes from Underground" or "Crime and Punishment." The ideas Dostoevsky explores here need some context and understanding; they may leave the inexperienced reader a bit confused. At least that was my experience! After understanding him and his concerns, this novel cracked wide open. It is a darkly spiritual work, as are all of his; it is also quite disturbing. When young Ippolit describes the Hans Holbein painting "Christ in the Tomb" that adorns the cover of the Oxford edition, we see into the darkest reaches of despair and hopelessness. Indeed, the painting is a Christ that is unresurrected, one that is rotting flesh and cannot, in Dostoevsky's scenario, save humankind. This thought terrifies Rogozhin, Myshkin... and Dostoevsky himself. What a stunning achievement this work is. I am in awe of it. Simply: Read it.
Rating:
Summary: Perfection of Literature, Perfection of Soul
Review: Shortly after the publishing of the critically acclaimed Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky once again showcases his talent as a versatile writer capturing the essense of the soul, plunging into the darkness of the human spirit, and manifests a trace of faltering light in his attempt to portray a Christ-figure, Prince Myshkin. Selfless, innocent, truthful...our sickly hero fascinates the glamorous St. Petersburg society while blindly stumbling into an unseemly liason with a notorious "fallen angel". All the while claiming to love out of pity, the saintly antagonist grows to love a young beauty lurking behind a persona of nonchalance. Love is selfish, and selflessness is of the characteristics that defines the Christ-figure Dostoyevsky tries to present here. The Christ-figure fails b/c perfection is suffering...like all idealism sprung from the pursuit of perfection as our world is a battleground where no extremeties thrive. Myshkin does love two women, but is ultimately lost in his pathos toward "sinners". After all, what would Christ choose between passion and compassion?
Rating:
Summary: By far, the best book I've read
Review: Dostoyevsky is the master of the art of creating the character. All his characters have a distinct personality, each of them behaving in a certain way, until you truly feel for those characters. But in The Idiot, things are different. You see the corruption of the people through the eyes of the innocent and loveable Prince Myshkin. But Myshkin is seen as an 'Idiot' because of his true kindness. Only the strong can survive in this world, or so it seems. The character of Hippolite is also a truly great character, as well as Rogozhin. Not a word should ever be changed from this awesome novel. Read it, change your view on life.
Rating:
Summary: Inspirational...
Review: The Idiot is one of the most fascinating works ever produced, ever discovered. It presents a portrait of the paragon of perfection in human terms, a portrait the reader loves and envies, but one that we invite to the soul of our souls. The reader is inspired to aspire to become the Idiot. It is is a magical pill that, once swallowed, is medicine for our souls. The Idiot and the novel that revolves around him are "inspiration" epitomised.
Rating:
Summary: Try to be like Prince Myshkin
Review: The book is the saddest of the great novels Dostoyevsky wrote. It also has the best character he created (Prince Myshkin). It's what happens to that great character that makes it the saddest book. I've read _Karamazov_ more often and I feel it is the better work of art, but this one changed me more. It changed the way I deal with other people.
|
