Caleb
I enjoyed The Idiot nearly as much as Crime & Punishment, but it tends to meander a bit too much in certain sections for it to be quite as great in my view. It feels very personal in the sense that many elements are taken from Dostoevsky's life, such as The Prince's odd obsession with executions and his recounting of a false execution nearly identical to his own. There are a lot of historical and obscure literary references that are covered in my editions footnotes which was quite helpful. An interesting note from the introduction of my edition: There is less of a sense of place in The Idiot as in Crime & Punishment as Dostoevsky was living abroad to escape creditors while writing it.
Although Dostoevsky viewed the Prince as a pure and Christ-Like figure, someone who is utterly innocent and pure, it was difficult for me to see him as such. Yes, he is generally a good person who has pure intentions, but he doesn't really actively try to do any good in the world. His pureness stems more from his naivety and honesty as well as his inability to recognize the ill intent of those around him. Can this really be considered the image of perfect goodness? It's a good question and Lev Myshkin is an excellent character, but it was hard for me to see him as anything more than a stand up guy in an otherwise cynical and pompous world of aristocracy.
I enjoyed The Idiot nearly as much as Crime & Punishment, but it tends to meander a bit too much in certain sections for it to be quite as great in my view. It feels very personal in the sense that many elements are taken from Dostoevsky's life, such as The Prince's odd obsession with executions and his recounting of a false execution nearly identical to his own. There are a lot of historical and obscure literary references that are covered in my editions footnotes which was quite helpful. An interesting note from the introduction of my edition: There is less of a sense of place in The Idiot as in Crime & Punishment as Dostoevsky was living abroad to escape creditors while writing it.
Although Dostoevsky viewed the Prince as a pure and Christ-Like figure, someone who is utterly innocent and pure, it was difficult for me to see him as such. Yes, he is generally a good person who has pure intentions, but he doesn't really actively try to do any good in the world. His pureness stems more from his naivety and honesty as well as his inability to recognize the ill intent of those around him. Can this really be considered the image of perfect goodness? It's a good question and Lev Myshkin is an excellent character, but it was hard for me to see him as anything more than a stand up guy in an otherwise cynical and pompous world of aristocracy.