The Idiot by Dostoevsky discussion

For discussion of book one, chapters 12-14.

On chapter 12:
Kolya seems older than 13, doesn't he? I wonder what the Russian school system was like, given that Dostoevsky has referred to Kolya being in high school. Maybe Russian high school then was equivalent to our secondary school - after primary school.

Kolya likes the Prince, and is definitely in accord with the Prince's values - he also doesn't care for the values and behaviors of high society people.

In this chapter, we become aware of Kolya's friend Ippolit, who has consumption, and Ippolit's mother, Mrs. B.

I had some confusion understanding something here. Dostoevsky seemed to be saying tht Ippolit's mother gets money from the general and then lends it to Ivolgin at high interest. But Ivolgin is a general too, or at least was.

So I assume in just referring to the general (and the Avsey translation just says "general" without a name -- apparently I left my Pevear translation on the bus, and it's gone for good), Dostoevsky was referring to General Evanchin. I'm inclined to call Ivolgin just Ivolgin not only to distinguish the two generals appart but also because he doesn't deserve a respectful title!

On Chapter 13 -
So General Epanchin presents Nastassia with pearls. What are his motives here? We can only guess. Clearly he's attracted to her - might he want to make her his mistress?

I am bothered in this chapter - and others as well - by how the characters taunt each other. There seems to be a lot of cruel mockery, even in the Epanchin family. And we see it in Nastassia, and now with "Ferdy" (the tenant).

Admittedly, I've had some bad experiences with Russian immigrants here in the Boston area - including one instructor - who seem to find making fun of others or humiliating them acceptable behavior. So I'm wondering if this is/was more acceptable in Russia than in some other cultures, as if it's acceptable that only a thin veneer of civilization covers more primitive emotional behavior. (My housecleaner just today told me today that she recently left her Romanian/Russian husband because of his cruel, judgmental, aggressive behavior which he kept defending as normal and acceptable in marriage).

And then Ferdy proposes this so-called game of sharing one's most disgraceful acts. This is no game - confession belongs in Catholic confession and between two people who love and trust each other, and therefore confide sensitive matters.

But to expose one's most shameful act in a group such as this seems perverse, doesn't it? Why do you think people go along with it? It's as if there's some perverse pleasure in exposing one's dark side in a situation in which one cannot count on being heard with compassion.

General Yepanchin isn't too happy about this - he seems to be one of the sanest characters - but apparently he's going to stick around and participate - maybe just because he wants to remain in Nastassia's presence.

Doesn't it also seem odd to you that the Prince seemed to "fall in love" with Nastassia from the time he first looked at her picture? He's only just met here and he already thinks she's total perfection and tells her so.

Given we're discovering how perceptive he is, in contrast to the initial impression he gives, doesn't it seem strange that he - like the other men - would be so overcome by physical attraction? Yet it doesn't seem as if he's having a testosterone reaction like the General or Rogozhin -- his reaction seems to be more aesthetic, related to sheer beauty.

Most of the men here, however, seem to confuse passion and sexual attraction with love. I guess that's a common male syndrome in many cultures, and maybe for adolescence in general, and young women too. From my now senior citizen perspective, I have difficulty understanding it, but maybe that's because my own hormonal level is much lower than it once was. I too was once capable of believing myself in love on the basis of sexual attraction and connection.

Chapter 14 comments -
So the men tell stories about their shameful behavior, not all which is shameful (how fitting that the General would turn a shameful story into an admirable action, though an action - like many in the novel - based on using money to deal with a situation).

What most struck me in this chapter was how nervous Totsky was when Nastassia said she'd tell her story too (heaven forbid she expose him!) and how disturbed Nastassia - who's already exhibiting unstable behavior - seems to be when Totsky tells of an experience that is less shameful than his seduction and violation of Nastassia.

Dostoevsky is quite skilled here because he doesn't tell us directly what's going on with her and yet we know. And I would think that Dostoevsky meant to portray her volatile, reckless behavior after that as a reaction to angry feelings stirred up by Totsky's avoiding mentioning his violation of her.

Her leaving a very significant decision - marriage - up to the Prince seems very reckless, as if she simply doesn't care what the result might be. Or maybe, do you think, she knows that Prince is attracted to her, and might not want her to marry Ganya - so he can help her get out of that marriage possibility?

Also on chapter 14 --

Nastassia also reveals that the Prince is the first person she met whom she recognizes as a "truly loyal" person.

I'm using the Avsey translation now, so am wondering what words other translations might say besides loyal. Loyal doesn't seem like the right word. I would think she would mean honest or sincere. (Anyone else reading this --- are you willing to look up the word here that she uses near the end of the chapter, to describe the Prince?)

The Prince forms opinions of others based on brief impressions. But so does Nastassia. She says she believes in him and he believes in her.

Tracy wrote: "Doesn't it also seem odd to you that the Prince seemed to "fall in love" with Nastassia from the time he first looked at her picture? He's only just met here and he already thinks she's total perfe..."

This type of attraction is not unfamiliar for me, neither personal or as someone who reads novels (we have the same phenomena between Vronsky and Anna in AK). But it is very complex and a mix of love, sexual attraction and more. I like Jung's idea of a Shadow (the right word?) and we meet her our emotions flourish.

Now - after many years - I have got a good understanding of what my Shadow looks like and I am very aware when I am in danger. This ability to observe myself has made it possible for my reason to decide to what to do instead of directly jumping into a new relation.

I fully understand the Prince and how he reacts when he sees the picture of Nastassia - he is lost and unaware of the danger. I wonder how I would react if I had met Nastassia.

Well, these powers are dangerous but what a wonderful experience!

As I am reading The Idiot and Anna Karenina at the same time I cannot avoid to compare them:
the context - a well-behaving society at Betsy's vs Rogozin and his friends at Nastassia's.
the processes - relatively normal vs sudden outbreaks and changes
the characters - a complex but understandable Anna vs a Nastassia where I feel what is going on but cannot understand or explain it.

I don't rank these works but I say they are different but excellent in their own ways.

Tracy wrote: "Also on chapter 14 --

Nastassia also reveals that the Prince is the first person she met whom she recognizes as a "truly loyal" person.

I'm using the Avsey translation now, so am wondering what ..."

In the Eva Martin translation Nastasia describes the Prince as " a man endowed with real truthfulness of spirit".

Tracy wrote: "On Chapter 13 -
So General Epanchin presents Nastassia with pearls. What are his motives here? We can only guess. Clearly he's attracted to her - might he want to make her his mistress?

I am bothe..."

Sounds like every party I ever went to!

Ah, welcome, Len. I will be glad to have more participants here so our sites is less of my monologues.

"A man endowed with real truthfulness of spirit" sounds to me like a more viable translation than "loyal" since it refers to Myshkin's very obvious honesty and sincerity. (I wish I hadn't left my Pevear translation on the bus - I would like to consult that!)

Like Gosta, I am drawn to both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and appreciate them both for different reasons.

But aware that part of the problem in our contemporary world is that the irrational has surfaced to such an extent that it is destroying the rational, I think that Dostoevsky may speak more to us today. He has many characters who are motivated by primal emotions more than rational thinking and who live on the edge of sanity. And I fear that many cultures today are losing their balance on that very thin edge.