Dear All,
I am finally back on track with my reading :) The entries have been great food for thought. Trying to figure out what Myshkin is all about is no easy feat, especially when we are presented with the idea (as Allie mentioned) that Dostoyevsky said he was trying to portray a “truly beautiful soul.” Did he mean it? Did somebody just quote a passing thought Dostoyevsky once had, or was this truly the goal of the work? And if it was, did he succeed?
I have to say, Myshkin still has not convinced me. So far, Yelena noticed that his actions make him seem like a manipulator, Oxana pointed out the contradiction of his name (and we discussed the connotations of mice and rodents), I think several people referenced the fact that Myshkin mentions that he thinks he may be smarter than other people (and definitely smarter than people believe him to be) and that he has a special purpose (although he does have one very clear purpose he tries to talk about with the General—his inheritance, but I think when he mentions a special “idea” during the conversation with the girls [“У него начинала мелькать одна странная идея, впрочем еще не совсем ясная” and others], he is talking about something different), and Katia did a great job considering the significance of Myshkin’s artistic abilities and how they reflect on his personality and how people (including us) perceive him. Overall, I would say I am still at a loss. What struck me unpleasantly in last week’s reading was how he “stood up for himself” to Ganya, when they were on their way to Ganya’s apartments. Myshkin’s defense of himself and statement that they should part ways seemed like a bluff. How quickly he accepted Ganya’s apology was… unsettling. On the other hand, I also realize that this may be a good gesture—he did not want to torture Ganya or embarrass him, he merely stood up for himself and quickly retreated to make things right again. Not a bad thing to do. Still…
Other impressions from the reading: we’ve met quite a few interesting characters by now. What do you guys think of Lizaveta Prokof’evna? What about her daughters? I wonder about the characteristics Myshkin gave them.
Oh! Before I forget. Did anybody find it interesting that almost nobody ever calls Myshkin by his name? It’s always Prince. Князь. Reminds me of that Наутилиус song, князь тишины...
Back to Lizaveta. What do you think about Myshkin calling her childlike? Children are quite prominent in these sections of Chapter I. Do you find them believable, in Myshkin’s telling? What impression did that whole story of Mary leave you with? Was it pleasant, sweet, honorable? Or was it… strained, idealistic in an unnatural sense?
I guess this is not a very literary question, but do you guys believe that the children would behave like that?
And what about when Schneider calls Myshkin a child, and Myshkin does not agree?
I can’t stop with my questions :) What do you guys think of the girls’ interaction among themselves regarding Myshkin? Are they sold on him, or do they still have doubts? It is pretty clear that their mother is enamored, but what about the rest of them?
And what about Aglaya? Does she get things more deeply (or intuitively) than the others, or is she just spoiled?
Looking over my underlinings… the narrator himself says (when Ganya is having an argument with Myshkin) “Но именно чрез это бешенство он и ослеп; иначе он давно бы обратил внимание на то, что этот "идиот", которого он так третирует, что-то уж слишком скоро и тонко умеет иногда всё понять и чрезвычайно удовлетворительно передать.” [But it was by his rage that he was blinded; otherwise he would have noticed long ago that this “idiot,” whom he treats as such, can altogether too quickly and subtly understand everything and can quite satisfactorily convey it.] So Myshkin is TOO keen, TOO perceptive… Granted, the narrator may be speaking from Ganya’s POV. Why would he do that?
And finally, about NF’s arrival. She immediately identifies him as the idiot :P
I think that the Epanchin girls are very amused by Myshkin--you're right, no one calls him that!--but there is some distrust as well. If I remember correctly, Adelaida and Aglaia commented at the very beginning that he might be just playing a part. And later Aglaia compares him to a rich but pennypinching widow, implying, as I understood it, that he is false and pretentious. I think that they are all smart, but Aglaia does seem to understand him more because she says that he knows how to be happy and how to find something positive in all events. She's the one who asks him if he considers himself smarter than others and tells him not to apologize for "teaching" them. What's interesting is that, on the other hand, Myshkin claims not to understand her because she is a mystery. That's how he explains why he skipped her in his description of their faces. What's even more interesting is why Aglaia later asks him to read Gania's note. If she doesn't trust him, why does she want him to know? Or is it just about embarrassing Gania?
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm afraid to answer this question with my full feelings about Aglaia, because there are supposed to be no spoilers :) But I would say she showed the note to Myshkin because... well, for a variety of reasons, of course. She wanted to spite Ganya, she may actually be giving Myshkin a test, or she may trust him (incidentally, she may have been giving him such a hard time Because she liked him). But in a way, I think she is spoiled, and she likes to rebel against decorum. A proper lady would not do such a thing, but she did. Maybe some of her biting humor also comes from this.
ReplyDelete