Um... this is Dostoevsky.
The majestic first half is worth 10 stars
After reading the amazing “Crime and Punishment” and “Notes from Underground”, I was eager to read “The Idiot”. I was captivated from the very beginning. The Prince, Nastasia, Rogojin, and Mrs. Epanchin were wonderful characters. The theme of undeserved guilt and self-destruction was played to the fullest in Nastasia; no human heart will fail to cry for her tragedy. But I think the Prince is an even greater literary feat. Just as it is harder to write a great comedy than a great tragedy, it is harder to portray a convincing saint than a delicious villain. I still cannot wrap my mind around the fact that for all his crazy drowning patience, innocence, generosity, and love, the Prince managed to evoke adoration rather than nausea. He is a saint, a sheep, a child, and I as the reader stand witness to his moving and natural beauty. Trust me, I am one of those cynics who will roll my eyes out of their sockets whenever I read about “supreme” characters that their own creators rave about. The scenes themselves are magnificent emotional storms that toss readers along with the characters, each wave bigger than the last. The infamous $10,000 scene alone was worth the read and is simply one of the most powerful pieces I have ever encountered. FD is the Master in peeling away at human nature – you think this must surely be the last layer, when he suddenly reveals another and you start feeling you have expected it all along.
The novel was nothing short of awe-inspiring up to midway, when suddenly it lost steam. Indeed, I think it would have been perfect had it stopped right after the $10,000 scene or the hotel fit scene. As it is, the story went on and our poor Prince was dragged like a sheep-for-slaughter into a *drumroll* puppy love story. But of course nothing by FD is really pointless. If anything, it spoke clearly as to why most saints were not too crazy about romance, because it is an inherently petty and selfish business, one that big-hearted Prince is clearly not cut out for. Aglaya is just a pretty, sharp, arrogant, immature, spoiled little tyrant, nothing more, nothing less. At one point FD described a character as one who was “from head to foot permeated and saturated with the longing to be original… though he may possibly imagine himself a man of genius and originality, none the less has within his heart the deathless worm of suspicion and doubt”. It struck me that Aglaya fits squarely into this class of dissatisfied “clever commoner” who forever torments and self-torments. Prince was her one and only “originality”.
Glaring flaws pop up in the second half. The confession by Hippolyte, which supposedly mirrored the ravings in the brilliant “Notes”, was an unexpected bore. In fact, the novel would be much better without this tiresome character altogether. I cannot for the life of me figure how this happened under the same pen. I was surprised at how dull I find Hippolyte to be, when he is supposed to be so interesting with his extreme egotism and cynicism. Thereafter I skipped General Ivolgin’s long story about Napoleon – I never dreamt of skipping a word written by FD. Even the Epanchin party scene seemed a little contrived, as if the adorable Prince was suddenly reprogrammed to become a clown for the heck of it. As I drudged through these pages I screamed WHAT HAPPENED? I confess I held FD to a standard too high, but no, I’m not going to accept less from one of the best writers in history! Being the genius he was, FD himself seemed to realize the holes and wrote “…we feel that we have already given to this secondary character in our story more attention than we originally intended”, “It was so unlike his usual timid self-constraint; so inconsistent with his usual taste and tact, and with his instinctive feeling for the higher proprieties”. These stick out as little “to-fix” notes to himself. Unfortunately FD never had the time to carefully revise his novels, which is certainly a big tragedy in literature. In the end I had to accept that “The Idiot” is like its title character – showing the noblest, purest, most beautiful qualities you can ever find on earth, yet who is subject to damaging fits that dismay all. The second half never quite picked up back to standard, although the ending is befitting for each character, especially Aglaya (I am relieved that FD treated her as what she really is). Read and treasure the majestic first half, and forgive the mediocre second half. I was glad I did.
After reading the amazing “Crime and Punishment” and “Notes from Underground”, I was eager to read “The Idiot”. I was captivated from the very beginning. The Prince, Nastasia, Rogojin, and Mrs. Epanchin were wonderful characters. The theme of undeserved guilt and self-destruction was played to the fullest in Nastasia; no human heart will fail to cry for her tragedy. But I think the Prince is an even greater literary feat. Just as it is harder to write a great comedy than a great tragedy, it is harder to portray a convincing saint than a delicious villain. I still cannot wrap my mind around the fact that for all his crazy drowning patience, innocence, generosity, and love, the Prince managed to evoke adoration rather than nausea. He is a saint, a sheep, a child, and I as the reader stand witness to his moving and natural beauty. Trust me, I am one of those cynics who will roll my eyes out of their sockets whenever I read about “supreme” characters that their own creators rave about. The scenes themselves are magnificent emotional storms that toss readers along with the characters, each wave bigger than the last. The infamous $10,000 scene alone was worth the read and is simply one of the most powerful pieces I have ever encountered. FD is the Master in peeling away at human nature – you think this must surely be the last layer, when he suddenly reveals another and you start feeling you have expected it all along.
The novel was nothing short of awe-inspiring up to midway, when suddenly it lost steam. Indeed, I think it would have been perfect had it stopped right after the $10,000 scene or the hotel fit scene. As it is, the story went on and our poor Prince was dragged like a sheep-for-slaughter into a *drumroll* puppy love story. But of course nothing by FD is really pointless. If anything, it spoke clearly as to why most saints were not too crazy about romance, because it is an inherently petty and selfish business, one that big-hearted Prince is clearly not cut out for. Aglaya is just a pretty, sharp, arrogant, immature, spoiled little tyrant, nothing more, nothing less. At one point FD described a character as one who was “from head to foot permeated and saturated with the longing to be original… though he may possibly imagine himself a man of genius and originality, none the less has within his heart the deathless worm of suspicion and doubt”. It struck me that Aglaya fits squarely into this class of dissatisfied “clever commoner” who forever torments and self-torments. Prince was her one and only “originality”.
Glaring flaws pop up in the second half. The confession by Hippolyte, which supposedly mirrored the ravings in the brilliant “Notes”, was an unexpected bore. In fact, the novel would be much better without this tiresome character altogether. I cannot for the life of me figure how this happened under the same pen. I was surprised at how dull I find Hippolyte to be, when he is supposed to be so interesting with his extreme egotism and cynicism. Thereafter I skipped General Ivolgin’s long story about Napoleon – I never dreamt of skipping a word written by FD. Even the Epanchin party scene seemed a little contrived, as if the adorable Prince was suddenly reprogrammed to become a clown for the heck of it. As I drudged through these pages I screamed WHAT HAPPENED? I confess I held FD to a standard too high, but no, I’m not going to accept less from one of the best writers in history! Being the genius he was, FD himself seemed to realize the holes and wrote “…we feel that we have already given to this secondary character in our story more attention than we originally intended”, “It was so unlike his usual timid self-constraint; so inconsistent with his usual taste and tact, and with his instinctive feeling for the higher proprieties”. These stick out as little “to-fix” notes to himself. Unfortunately FD never had the time to carefully revise his novels, which is certainly a big tragedy in literature. In the end I had to accept that “The Idiot” is like its title character – showing the noblest, purest, most beautiful qualities you can ever find on earth, yet who is subject to damaging fits that dismay all. The second half never quite picked up back to standard, although the ending is befitting for each character, especially Aglaya (I am relieved that FD treated her as what she really is). Read and treasure the majestic first half, and forgive the mediocre second half. I was glad I did.
