The Classics discussion

What did you think? Does this book deserve to reside in the Pantheon of great Russian writers or does Feo overreach himself?

Interesting question. This is the only Dostoyevsky I've read and the only other Russian novel I've read was Anna Karenina. Both examples of fairly dark and depressing stuff. I liked AK much better though. I had trouble getting through this - I think it could have been a lot shorter. I agree with online crits I've read that the characters were underdeveloped. I spent a lot of time confused and wondering exactly what was going on. (Why did so-and-so do such-and-such and why do I care?) I see now that that was part of the reason.

On the whole, I liked Myshkin. In the beginning, especially, I identified quite a bit with him. But by the end I was thinking maybe there was more than just innocence at work. He didn't learn and grow and relate the way I thought he would and/or could. I enjoy appreciating the good in things and beauty in the world too, but Myshkin seemed to be stuck on one note and to be repeating his mistakes. I still sympathize with him - the end it brought him to was tragic and I definitely liked him better than any of the other characters - I just would have liked to see some growth.

I read in other forums that Myshkin is supposed to be a Christ figure. This is something which was not obvious to me, because I am not too familiar with Christianity. I am not sure how a Christ figure is supposed to grow and develop. I mean, are humans to regard Christ as perfect ? If Myshkin is to be more Christ-like, he has to touch the world more and influence the others to be better permanently, but his positive influence, if any, tends to be short-lived, lasting for the moments only when he is physically present. If he could affect others to be better that may undermine the message that humans are essentially corrupted and bad.
On other characters, I'd rather they remain under-developed as it is in the book, then to double the length of the novel. To me, some of them seem a little redundant, although it is a little interesting to catch glimpses of various kinds of characters, most of them not too likeable though quite realistic.

OK Two great perspectives that I did not come to on my own. This book didn't succeed for me, but more power to those for whom it does.

My thinking was that Dostoyevsky wanted to make the point that the world destroys beauty and innocence. But maybe his stance is more that beauty must stand up to and hold out against evil. I guess the root of my problem with this issue is that I don't find The Idiot's premise realistic. Premise being - this one person is good and the rest of the world is evil. I don't really find such a black and white position interesting. To me, appreciating beauty and innocence does not negate the fact that evil exists. Faith in the good in people would not, to my mind, necessitate such a stubborn unbending stance. People can change and acknowledge evil without espousing it.

As far as Myshkin being a Christ like figure, for that to be successful for me, I would have looked for him to inspire and motivate people to be better. I would have maybe looked for an understanding that humans struggle to overcome evil and encouragement in that struggle. If influencing people to be better undermines the premise that all people are corrupt, then is there no aspect of saving involved in Dosto's idea? No impetus to strive to be good? Everyone is either one or the other? Born that way? And evil will destroy all, I guess.

In the end, I am still of the opinion that the characters were underdeveloped and, yes, often redundant. I don't think developing them would necessarily mean a longer book though. I would much rather read one or two characters that feel like real live people than the multitudes of cardboard cutouts contained in here.