Boy. Reading idiot was a lot more fun than I anticipated – and I
anticipated it to be fun. To my knowledge of literary works (which
consists of very few), I got the impression that the introduction is
supposed to be a boring loading of essential information, that may
lead up to something worthwhile in the future chapters of the book.
This is not the case with the idiot. Dostoevsky manages to pack a lot
of essential pieces about characters, establish rich settings (for
example, description of the atmosphere in the house of general
Epanchin), and general perspective on events. *
*- For now it looks like all the action is seen from the eyes of
Myshkin. To me, Myshkin is a mix between Jesus and the narrator dog
from “Sobachje Serdce” (before the surgery; before it became Prolitar
Prolitar'evich). He is kind, honest, and has no complexes. He is also
modest, observant, and he is seen childlike in the eyes of characters,
quality which helps him to infiltrate the plot line with little
intrusion.
I also feel like Dostoevsky is the Idiot. This is purely my gut
feeling based on 50 some pages that I have read so far. The reason why
I think Myshkin is Dostoevsky is below:
Myshkin is introverted – this is evidenced by the little dialogue between
him and the clerk at the General's house regarding death sentencing. What
is worse -- to die with hope to survive (perhaps even through torture),
or to die while awaiting doom? It is clear hat he puts himself in the
shoes of the convicted and counts off seconds before the inevitable
death. In order to do that, one must be introverted, I think. In order
to answer this question, one must answer the question of "how would I
feel? What would run through my head in these last seconds?" This
requires a lot of inner mental work. From this psychology, I can (not
safely, but...) deduce that he would also perceive others in this
matter. Putting himself in their shoes and becoming them, enveloping them
in his inner world. Even though he is unable to conduct himself
properly in public, he is well aware of the person that is currently
in contact with him and can anticipate what he or she will say. Which
is evidenced by his readiness to answer all the questions (as if he
already knew what they will ask). Effectively, that is what Dostoevsky
might do, while exploring the world he creates as he writes the other
characters.
I also see how some readers may find Myshkin to be a skillful
manipulator, but I don't think it's really a skill or manipulation.
That goes back to say that Myshkin has some Jesus quality in him. Was
Jesus also a skillful manipulator? By this logic, yes. Sincerity is a
viable communication model, just like aggressiveness, assertiveness,
or suckupness (model that works, but not very rewarding, as noted by
Dostoevsky, or Myshkin, or both, while analyzing Lebedev). Both,
Lebedev and Myshkin got what they wanted in they end of the train
ride: Myshkin got it through empathy, Lebedev got it through
aggressive persistence. We always use reason when communicating with
others to put ourselves in the estimate ball park of where we want to
be after a certain segment of interaction. I feel ike Myshkin's
approach is fair: he doesn't lie (at least yet), does not confront,
just passively puts himself in the position where he can collect the
most benefit.
I am looking toward to reading more chapters.
anticipated it to be fun. To my knowledge of literary works (which
consists of very few), I got the impression that the introduction is
supposed to be a boring loading of essential information, that may
lead up to something worthwhile in the future chapters of the book.
This is not the case with the idiot. Dostoevsky manages to pack a lot
of essential pieces about characters, establish rich settings (for
example, description of the atmosphere in the house of general
Epanchin), and general perspective on events. *
*- For now it looks like all the action is seen from the eyes of
Myshkin. To me, Myshkin is a mix between Jesus and the narrator dog
from “Sobachje Serdce” (before the surgery; before it became Prolitar
Prolitar'evich). He is kind, honest, and has no complexes. He is also
modest, observant, and he is seen childlike in the eyes of characters,
quality which helps him to infiltrate the plot line with little
intrusion.
I also feel like Dostoevsky is the Idiot. This is purely my gut
feeling based on 50 some pages that I have read so far. The reason why
I think Myshkin is Dostoevsky is below:
Myshkin is introverted – this is evidenced by the little dialogue between
him and the clerk at the General's house regarding death sentencing. What
is worse -- to die with hope to survive (perhaps even through torture),
or to die while awaiting doom? It is clear hat he puts himself in the
shoes of the convicted and counts off seconds before the inevitable
death. In order to do that, one must be introverted, I think. In order
to answer this question, one must answer the question of "how would I
feel? What would run through my head in these last seconds?" This
requires a lot of inner mental work. From this psychology, I can (not
safely, but...) deduce that he would also perceive others in this
matter. Putting himself in their shoes and becoming them, enveloping them
in his inner world. Even though he is unable to conduct himself
properly in public, he is well aware of the person that is currently
in contact with him and can anticipate what he or she will say. Which
is evidenced by his readiness to answer all the questions (as if he
already knew what they will ask). Effectively, that is what Dostoevsky
might do, while exploring the world he creates as he writes the other
characters.
I also see how some readers may find Myshkin to be a skillful
manipulator, but I don't think it's really a skill or manipulation.
That goes back to say that Myshkin has some Jesus quality in him. Was
Jesus also a skillful manipulator? By this logic, yes. Sincerity is a
viable communication model, just like aggressiveness, assertiveness,
or suckupness (model that works, but not very rewarding, as noted by
Dostoevsky, or Myshkin, or both, while analyzing Lebedev). Both,
Lebedev and Myshkin got what they wanted in they end of the train
ride: Myshkin got it through empathy, Lebedev got it through
aggressive persistence. We always use reason when communicating with
others to put ourselves in the estimate ball park of where we want to
be after a certain segment of interaction. I feel ike Myshkin's
approach is fair: he doesn't lie (at least yet), does not confront,
just passively puts himself in the position where he can collect the
most benefit.
I am looking toward to reading more chapters.
Dear Mr. Gandonov,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, thanks! I think it has been speculated that there are parallels between Dostoyevsky and Myshkin. I wonder about that. Definitely something to keep in mind as the character develops.
The story about the death sentence is actually from Dostoyevsky's own life. He was sentenced to death for participating in an intellectual group called the Petrashevsky Circle that the Tsar perceived as a threat. He and some other members of the group were all sentenced to death, but then were pardoned. However, they were not told about the pardon and thought they were about to be executed, it was a mock execution. They were only told at the last minute. I think one of the men went mad. Dostoyevsky himself went on to serve four years in katorga in Siberia and some time in Kazakhstan (!).
You say that Myshkin has no complexes. I wonder if it's true. I'll be on the lookout for tell-tale signs, such as weird laughs (which Professor Meerson attributed to him feeling nervous). As for him being childlike, I think you may be right on the dot. Let's read and see :)
I enjoyed reading your post. The part about Myshkin being introverted especially caught my attention. I don't know that I agree.
ReplyDeleteMyshkin's readiness to converse with, and even entertain (when M. Epanchin insists "Come, tell me something" it is not he who protests but her daughters), shows that he is comfortable being in the company of others. He also seems very adept at mimicking the sentiments of those around him, as I think Anya was beginning to touch on with his laughter, which I don't know that an introvert would see the use of or even be able to accomplish with as much skill as Myshkin does. An introvert, I think, would be more likely to see the scene from the outside rather than understanding so much of what was happening as to be able to mimic others' emotions.
That being said, as Anya has pointed out, Dostoyevsky seldom writes flat character so perhaps our struggle in identifying this part of him is a sign that it's not so black and white...?
Thanks for the comment. I think I just didn't know what introvert really meant, and used it inappropriately. Basically what I meant to say is that Myshkin has rich inner world :-)
ReplyDeleteGandonov, please be so kind as to change your last name. If you don't, I will overanalyze you as I did with the names of all Idiot characters in my post. Why do you want to be called a condom? Like feeling protected? :P
ReplyDelete