Anyway, a lot of cool ideas, a lot of interesting philosophical discussions, but I started to get bored with the themes after a while. It seemed like the book could have been half as long and served its purpose well. If you decide to read it and you stop halfway through, read the Cliff Notes version and you won't have missed much, in my opinion.
The main theme of the book is the depiction of a truly honest, good man. The hero of the story, Prince Muishkin (or Myshkin), is a man who cares nothing about gossip, status, wealth, or anything that typical societies value. He cares about people. He cares about their feelings. He cares about their happiness. And he cares about ideas. He's extremely intelligent, but has epilepsy and as his fits are coming on, he starts to act like an idiot. But that isn't really the reason for the title. He is given the title of 'idiot' because, in the eyes of the world, his simplicity, altruism, apathy for social forms and sincere expressions make him seem stupid. And if you were a slave to the social norms of 19th century Russia, he would have seemed like an idiot to you. Perhaps some of us, being slaves to 21st century social norms, would consider good men and women around us to be idiots for similar reasons ...
The first half of the book really makes the hero shine and seems to present the theme that a good, simple man can triumph in spite of his ignorance and/or apathy for 'the way things are done.' The theme seems to be that a good man will succeed because of virtue and the strength of his kindness, graciousness, sincerity, humility, etc.
The second half of the book (roughly) takes a bit of a turn. I think Dostoyevsky was trying to make the case that in the end, such a virtuous man will ultimately be exploited by others and fail because he is fundamentally at odds with his society. Sort of like the idea that in an unjust society, the only proper place for a just man is prison. There is something to that idea, but in general, I had a hard time swallowing the theme because of his portrayal of the circumstances and I got bored with the repetitions of his arguments to that effect. Muishkin ultimately fails, not because he is too good, but because he focuses on some of the wrong things. He fails because, in his simplicity, he remains ignorant of certain facts and refuses to see the importance of at least recognizing certain social constructs whether or not he chooses to adopt them himself. He also continually forgives others without considering that it may be wise to be cautious to avoid being exploited repeatedly. In the end, Muishkin ends badly, but I think Dostoyevsky's hero was ill formed. The truly good man does not have to be willfully ignorant of certain evils. The good man simply has to choose the good when faced with evil. The hero is created well in the first half of the book, but I much prefer Dostoyevsky's heroes in Brothers Karamazov.
I'm glad I read the book, but for the sake of posterity, I think a student would be better off reading 'Brothers Karamazov' and 'Crime and Punishment' and leaving 'The Idiot' alone. With those first two works, you get all of Dostoyevsky's brilliance, his amazing descriptions of strange mental states, his philosophy (though more fully developed in Karamazov), and a host of characters, both good and evil, that encompass almost everything 'The Idiot' can offer. There is, however, no other character quite like Prince Muishkin. If you haven't read it, you might try reading the first part just to get a taste of how Dostoyevsky viewed the ideal good man ... at least at one point in his life. It's definitely an interesting and worthy character sketch, but I'm glad he changed his mind later. I think Alyosha Karamazov is a much more worthy hero.
No comments:
Post a Comment