The Idiot

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 think I'd go a 3.5 if it was allowable on here. While Dostoevsky's penchant for engaging and incredibly realistic dialogue is often on full display, to me it often felt winding and a little much. I guess it's always maybe prideful of someone reviewing to say things could have been trimmed from the novel, since it's the author's artistic choice to leave things in, but to me a lot of the book felt superfluous. I think it's evident that a lot of these characters would later be condensed in Karamazov. Lebedev and General Ivolgin are different shades of Fyodor Pavlovich, Prince Myshkin and Kolya are two different sides of Alyosha, Keller and Gavrila are shades of Mitya, etc. So all that being said, a lot of the dialogue ends up feeling repetitive, though Lebedev and the General are genuinely entertaining characters, and in all respects the purpose is to keep using the Prince as a foil compared to more depraved beings than him, it becomes somewhat tiresome, to me anyhow.
On a different note however, the fourth part is much more engaging to me, and redeems the book quite a bit, though the ending is rather abrupt and sudden. I can also see how the length of the novel is justified by how it must orchestrate and set up such a profound test of the virtuous Myshkin. Such a specific conundrum the Prince runs into, it's an interesting corner that Dostoevsky paints him into. At the same time the ending seems to almost unravel the Prince's character. Anyhow, I also love Dostoevsky's persistent use of misquotation to make his dialogue more real, also a big help to read annotated copies, it makes the characterization deeper I'd say. Still enjoyed the book, but it's evident to me I might have been better off going to Crime and Punishment before this, though again, I don't see this as a waste of time by any means.

It was an effort to make it to the end of this book.

I enjoyed the first quarter, particularly Dostoyevsky describing (through Myshkin) the incident where he was being executed but it was called off at the very last minute, before the shots were fired. Hearing the details of what went through his head was super interesting. The retrospective on his time in exile in Siberia was great too.

I found the main story dull. Painful levels of detail. Not a lot of change in the environment to mix things up. Had to trudge through hoping it'd perk up again (it didn't until right at the end). Parts felt like reading a daytime soap opera. Nowhere near as enjoyable as The Brothers Karamazov. There were good parables in the last 3/4, but they were scattered amongst stacks of details.

Overall, a few awesome chapters, but the majority of the book was not my jam.