“They began to laugh at him for being so good” (The Idiot, Part I, Chapter 3)

Synopsis:

This novel focuses on a young Russian epileptic with aristocratic ties and extraordinarily good morals. These morals are so good and he, Prince Myshkin, is so devoted to them that he stands out in such a way that others around him view his behaviour as idiotic. After having spent time in a Swiss health resort, Myshkin re-enters Russian society and attempts to connect with his distant family, consisting of a wealthy general Yepanchin, with three beautiful socialite daughters, and his brother Ivolgin, also a general but not holding as much fortune. Both networks of characters branching off from these two figures are skeptical of the prince’s remarkable moral integrity, but while the wealthier side chooses to assess him from afar, the family lower down the hierarchical ladder takes him in and familiarizes him with their social circle. Myshkin gets to know the multitude of personalities on both sides and in the process becomes a competitor for both the youngest Yepanchin girl and widely desired yet infamous femme fatale. As tensions grow, relationships shift, new characters are mixed in and others drift out of direct view, differing views of beauty are considered and the theme of anticonformism is explored. 

Review:

As in the usual Dosoevsky manner, the central figure of The Idiot, Prince Myshkin, is meant to resemble a saintly person. This is not difficult to discover; Myshkin’s nature to consider all sides of a story or repetitively forgive those who harm him is conspicuous as one works their way through the remarkable amounts of dialogue in the book. I believe that the story is really told through this dialogue; through all the character’s frequent apostrophes and lengthy monologues. In my opinion, this style of narrative allows the audience to get to know every character on a deep level, accessing their individual and in most every character’s beside the prince’s, case, dramatic outlooks on certain events and concepts. 

The main concepts I noticed that were really illuminated in The Idiot were beauty, mortal awareness, and contrarianism. Beauty’s value is considered by multiple different viewpoints, whether it be seen as an object to possess, a vehicle for social ascension, or an adjective for goodness. Mortal awareness, or the hypnotic idea of human finitude, is heavily contemplated and brought forth in fervent conversation by both the prince and a younger character circling our protagonists’ tale. 

However, the theme of contrarianism is one that stuck out to me the most. I think this was intended by the author, as the title of the book references this theme, with respect to Myshkin’s personality compared to that of the company we see him in. The people around him consider his steadfast morals and open approaches as abnormal to the point of idiocy, and this makes him somewhat of a mysterious but alluring pariah. When they call him an ‘idiot’, though they are partially speaking to his chronic illness, (which is an ode to Dostoevsky’s struggle with epilepsy), they verbalize it in a demeaning way. But, as was the author’s intention in critiquing high society, being called out for contrasting so much to a society that is corrupt could actually be taken as a huge compliment.

Though I enjoyed this book and don’t think it’s missing much, I’d find it quite interesting to see the prince surrounded by members of truly lower social ranks, as opposed to the more fortunate the ones we find in the novel, to examine how they react to his personality; whether they also find him to be abnormal or whether he fits right in. I believe that if Dostoevsky had included scenes such as this and the case had been the latter, we’d have a clear suggestion about the moral decay of aristocracy. 

So, why didn’t the author choose to make such a claim even more clear? As in much dense Russian literature, it’s up to your interpretation! 

Love, Frances  

GFB Ambassaodr