Regular marked price: $13.95Discount Price: $11.16
Cost Savings: $2.79 (20%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 891.733
EAN num: 9780375702242
ISBN number: 0375702245
Label: Vintage
Manufacturer: Vintage
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 656
Printing Date: July 08, 2003
Publishing house: Vintage
Release Date: July 08, 2003
Sale Popularity Level: 16931
Studio: Vintage
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky’s masterful translation of The Idiot is destined to stand with their versions of Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, and Demons as the definitive Dostoevsky in English.
After his great portrayal of a guilty man in Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky set out in The Idiot to portray a man of pure innocence. The twenty-six-year-old Prince Myshkin, following a stay of several years in a Swiss sanatorium, returns to Russia to collect an inheritance and “be among people.” Even before he reaches home he meets the dark Rogozhin, a rich merchant’s son whose obsession with the beautiful Nastasya Filippovna eventually draws all three of them into a tragic denouement. In Petersburg the prince finds himself a stranger in a society obsessed with money, power, and manipulation. Scandal escalates to murder as Dostoevsky traces the surprising effect of this “positively beautiful man” on the people around him, leading to a final scene that is one of the most powerful in all of world literature.
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
Many critics have oddly tried to cast The Idiot as a thinly veiled autobiographical piece due to the fact that Dostoevsky, himself, suffered from epilepsy, but how this fact- that Myshkin is Dostoevsky- even were it true, helps the books be understood better, is never clarified. Another of the related main ideas that many critics wrongly point out in this novel is how Prince Myshkin is also seen as a de facto Jesus Christ-like stand in, but this can only be posited by a severe misinterpretation of the Christ myth. Yes, Myshkin is a devout Christian believer- in the old non-Born Again sense, and he seems preternaturally good, but he also subtly manipulates others, perhaps for their own good, if we accept the omniscient narrator's version of the tale's events, yet that very fact runs counter to the Christian beliefs of Jesus Christ as a totally selfless being, as do a number of other facts about Myshkin in the book. As with those critics that rather simplistically see Crime And Punishment as a great pro-Christian document, those who see Myshkin as a Christ-like figure see only those qualities in the character that fit their mold, and conveniently ignore those that do not fit. This is because too often the artist is conflated with his aistic creation. Yet, if as some believe, that Myshkin is also patterned after Dostoevsky, `evidenced' by when Myshkin, at a party, late in the novel, embarrasses the Epanchins when he goes on and on with a very reactionary screed on religion that many critics insist is really Dostoevsky's own pontifications mouthed by his fictive surrogate, does this not also logically mean that Dostoevsky must be claiming himself a Christ-like figure, perhaps because, like a god, an artist is a creator of worlds? You can obviously see how quickly such facile and unsupported critical notions lead to silliness.
Also, this notion is vitiated by the fact that other non-major characters often speak with a dramatic and logical force equal to Myshkin's, and often in opposition to his views, yet they are somehow not claimed to be Dostoevskian surrogates. As example, at one of the many parties in the novel, a minor character rails that social liberalism is contrary to Russians norms, that a liberal cannot be a Russian, and vice-versa. He says that liberalism is a foreign scourge from the decadent Western European nations, and that social liberalism attacks the very foundations of the Russian social system. This plea for an almost Fascist state is uttered with quite the same conviction as Myshkin's devoutly held religious beliefs, but no critics try to conflate the sentiments that character expresses with those held by Dostoevsky. Why? Merely because it's all said by a minor character, and myopic critics cannot believe that a held truth can be uttered in a sly fashion, in an offhanded way? I am not arguing for the proposition that those sentiments were Dostoevsky's own, but if I were, they would have the same minimal heft as those who argue that Myshkin's every ideal is a Dostoevskian one, even as the author claimed he wanted to create a wholly decent and guileless character, something one might safely assume Dostoevsky never posited himself as being, lest he'd never be able to be a real artist. Subtlety, it seems, eludes most critical interpretations of art.
Another flaw that haunts the book, and goes hand in hand with the baroqueness of the dialogue, is the length of the book, and, again, as in Crime And Punishment, the dreadful use of an anticlimactic epilogue- chapter twelve of the fourth section, although only one is used in this book. Simply dismissing this as `the style' relieves no modern reader of the burden of wading through unwieldy descriptions and pointless digressions woven merely to show how deeply sketched the background world the main narratives play out against is. Another thing that tests the patience of a modern reader is for Dostoevsky to never merely refer to a character by a Christian name or surname, but by both, often with one or more middle names tossed into the mix, yet then, in the subsequent paragraph, sentence, or breath have that person referred to by a mere nickname, making it seem as if another character has entered the scene, when they have not.
As for the title, The Idiot? I'm surprised that more critical attention has not centered on the question as to whom the title actually refers to. Of course, on the surface level, it refers to Prince Myshkin, but it could also refer to Rogozhin, who is reduced to murderous insanity, or to the narcissistic vanity of Aglaia, or the masochism of Anastassya. In all of Dostoevsky's works I've read thus far, Myshkin is easily the most well-rounded, authentically detailed, and `sane' major character the writer created, so this makes the question of the title's true referent all the more pertinent, and perplexing in its lack of critical discussion. Another avenue of thought for the title's meaning could ... Read More
Rated by buyers -
Dostoevsky's messiah, prince Myshkin, cannot save the corrupt world he enters. In a dark world that is torn apart by desire, money and chaos, Myshkin's compassion didn't save the sinners he cared for; rather it pushed them to complete and total destruction. In the end, Myshkin's failure forced him into despair and insanity.
Dostoevsky, strongly represents his personal beliefs in "the idiot": discussing religion as feelings instead of rules and rituals, expressing beauty as "enigma" that can't be defined, interacting with sinners and adulterers. Also, Myshkin, like Dostoevsky, suffered from epilepsy.
Unlike critics, I like to think of Dostoevsky as much deeper than just portraying his idiot as the perfect messiah, while portraying all others as sinners:
-Even though, Myshkin was portrayed as the light and Rogozhin as the dark; Rogozhin is the person who was devoted to one woman, while Myshkin is the one who was torn between his romantic love of Agalya and compassionate love of Nastassya.
-Even though Myshkin perceived Agalya as the light of his soul, he couldn't be strong for her when she demanded that he choose between her and Nastassya.
-Despite Myshkin idealism, he received some pleasure from his self denial and exemplary meekness and humility. He wanted to be different, but could not resist giving into his strong attraction to the dark tempting beauty of Nastassya. Typical man, chasing the pray gets more enticing when it tries to escape, even back in 1867.
-Good and evil had a confrontation more than once just like Myshkin and Rogozhin, but they both couldn't win and achieve their happiness. Was the confrontation a simple naïve struggle over Nastassya or was Dostoevsky portraying his own inner hell and his desperate love in real life to Suslova?
Maybe Dostoevsky didn't have all the answers to these weighty questions, but in the idiot he insinuated that the moral decay of society is not a stand alone aspect, and that humans are not merely victims. The corruption and chaos in the idiot's society was a result of the moral corruption of the characters themselves and the choices they made.
Rated by buyers 
-
I had read just two Dostoevsy novel before this - 'The Brothers Karamazov' and 'Notes from the Underground', but lots of Turgenev and some other Russians - Kropotkin, Goldman, .... I also have some connection with Russian people because some of my work colleagues are Russian ex-patriots (one even carries a family name mentioned at one point in 'The Idiot').
Russian naming is difficult for those of us who do not have the Russian background, and 'The Idiot' was hard to keep straight in my mind - I probably didn't feel comfortable with names to near the end of this very long novel. There's Pavlovitch and Pavlischtev - not the same person. The hero Myshkin is also Lyov Nikolayevitch. Gavril is also Ganya (the short form of his name). With a large suite of characters, tracking these names is not easy. Perhaps a publisher/translator might provide a guide for non-Russian readers. I did find some connection through my knowledge of music: Madame Epanchin, Lizaveta Pokofyevna reminded me of Prokofiev, and the young man dying of consumption, Ippolit, reminded me of Ippolitov-Ivanov.
This novel is a psychological thriller and it may be unbelievable to most readers. How did Dostoevsky know that there are people in the world like Myshkin - perhaps he was one himself, perhaps he observed and understood one. Myshkin, perhaps because of his own 'illness', is attuned to everyone else's needs - sacrificing his own needs as totally without value. So what happens when two women fall in love with him (strange though each of them is)? He wants to love them both. Neither can accept that, but still he cannot let go. This seems to be a recipe for disaster (and in some ways it is), but Myshkin flourishes where he might not have because he has the most extraordinary view of the value of every moment of life. Early on he describes a guillotine execution he had observed and how the man being executed clung to every moment of his life - trying to maximise the richness of it even as the blade came down on his neck. Does Dostoevsky really believe that this is an idiotic way to live life? Or is he recommending that we should all pay more attention, be less flippant with the time that passes us by?
One of the women who fall in love with Myshkin is one of Madame Epanchin's daughters - Aglaia Ivanovna. Despite her love, Aglaia torments Myshkin (but that's not of much significance to him). Here is a quote that meant so much to me - a real insight into Myshkin's personality. 'There is no doubt that the mere fact that he could come and see Aglaia, again without hindrance, that he was allowed to talk to her, sit with her, walk with her was the utmost bliss to him; and who knows, perhaps, he would have been satisfied with that for the rest of his life.'
This novel is hard work, and it's not a happy story. But it is rewarding in its insight into human nature. If you read it you will have to decide for yourself if people like Myshkin actually do exist. And if you happen to meet one - how should you interact with them?
other recommendations:
explore the philosophy of phenomenology - I don't have a preferred book to suggest
as a contrast - 'Spring Torrents' - Ivan Turgenev (the author is mentioned in 'The Idiot')
'Under Western Eyes' - Joseph Conrad
'Sylvie and Bruno' - Lewis Carroll
Rated by buyers 
-
Goooood Lord.
Wow.
Holy God.
The Idiot.
Just finished this bad boy.
Whew...I gotta go grab and iced-t or soemthing.
Where do I recieve my certificate?
I did it. And none of my friends have ever done it.
So it was worth it.
I'm like, "I'm almost done with the Idiot."
And they're like, "Couldn't do it brah. It's like he had two good books and the rest were sketches. Let me know who that one treats ya brah."
This book must have been written in a time when many books were not being written. And people didn't have movies. And the sat around all day staring at their walls. And had hedgehogs sold on the streets. It's got some freaking sweet parts. Totally. His metaphores on life in Christinaity are soemtimes mind blowing. But dude....come on. You were faking it a little when you wrote this.
"Yes. I have just finsihed my follow up to Crime and Punishemnet. It's called the Idiot," Dostovesky grimaces as he passes in the manuscript...
Beleive me. He knew this was awful too...He had to.
The story?
Oh man...
Hurting...
An ordeal.
This was not like Crime and Punishment or The Brothers...but it was still sweet in parts. But don;t read it. You are better off reading Island by Richard Laymon. But it is cool to said you have read it and it will give you things to think about. So maybe read it?
The 6 volume biography by Joseph Frank I have actually found to be better than most of Dostoevsky's books. I would reccomend those over this any day. It's helpful to have read a few of his books before reading the biography. But that biography is just so freaking sweet. (I've only read the very first three...)
The idiot.
Yep. That dude was an idiot.
I tired acting like him and people told me to get the hell out of thier presence. With their eyes. It's no way to act. But...maybe?
Alright, I admit it...it is awesome to be simple. But was he?
Dostoevsky. I love the dude. He needed to take a vaction or something...
I hope I die without knowing my exact date and time.
I would say read this book if you don't live by the ocean. If you live by the ocean, go to the ocean and build a fire, bring a CD player and pop in Black Monk Time by The Monks and throw fibre into the waves.
I do not live by the ocean.
Rated by buyers -
This was the second of Dostoevsky's works which I had read, the very first being The Brothers Karamazov. I have now read most of his novels and short stories and I have come appreciate The Idoit even more. Dostoevsky does a masterful job in creating a character in which the nature of Christ is made manifest within the culture of his day, but his character is not too holy. The humanity of Myshkin is what draws the reader to him. At points, the reader wants to jump into the story and speak on Prince Myshkin's defence and rescue him from the ignorance of his society, but the events must remain as they are, for there is no other way in which this story can end. It leaves the reader having to answer personal questions about how life should be live and how one should relate with others, even those who mean ill. As a slight caution, there are many cultural allusions which can be lost upon a modern reader, but the notes of Pevear and Volokhonsky are very helpful. They also, in my opinion, they provide the best modern translations of Dostoevsky's work.
Find other books like this one:
