Oxana's Second Post and Animal Obsession

I am definitely continuing to trace the role of animals in the novel:

(1) the donkey. I am a bit puzzled as to why a mere presence of a donkey changed Myshkin’s mood and outlook on life so suddenly and significantly. It is a scream of a donkey that woke Myshkin from his somber mood. Maybe there is a connection of Jesus riding a donkey into town? It does not have to be beautiful horse or a powerful mule but a very simple creature… Myshkin is a Jesus-like character? He does speak the language out of the bible.

The phrase from that scene that struck me the most is when Myshkin said that “a donkey is a kind and useful human.” Go figure.

(2) Back to birds! I am convinced now that the bird names were not coincidental. In the beginning of chapter 6 Myshkin describes children as birds. According to Myshkin, “there is nothing better in the world than a bird” and “when a pretty bird looks at you trustingly and happily, it would be shameful to lie to it.” His attitude to children is very Jesus-like (children will inherit the world).

Later in the same chapter, when Mary was on her deathbed, Myshkin describes children knocking on her windows from the outside like birds. In Russia, there is a superstition that a bird beating its wings against someone’s windows symbolizes imminent death. Pretty accurate in this case.. Myshkin also describes children/birds screaming outside Mary’s window as they were flopping their wings. I start seeing a pattern of the importance of sound (at least being produced by animals from what I have been following). The scream of a donkey woke Myshkin out of his depression and the screams of bird-like children were trying to help Mary at her deathbed.

What is Doskoevsky trying to show by attributing human-like qualities to a donkey and comparing children to birds? Going to read on. J

(3) When Rogozhin enters Ganya’s house, Ganya tells Rogozhin and his band to be more respectful by saying that “he is not entering a stable.” I thought the setup of the scene was pretty funny from when you look at it through the animal aspect. There was the Lion Mousey, Swan, Bird and Little Ram in the stable. Sounds like the entire animal farm getting together. :P

(4) When Ganya slaps Myshkin, Rogozhin shames him by saying that he’ll be feeling very guilty for insulting such a lamb (or sheep, “ovtsa).” Again, this is a clear reference to sacrificial lamb from the Bible. Myshkin is the sacrificial lamb but also NF’s name serves as a foreshadowing of a possibly a similar destiny.

(5) Knyaginya Belokonskaya (White Male Horse) – another addition to the domesticated animal kind. We have not met her, although her name is mentioned a few times.

On a different topic, to get back to the question about significance of calligraphy in the novel, Myshkin’s description of the face of a doomed man about to be executed that made me realize this. Myshkin described the man’s face as “as white as paper, absolutely white as a paper one writes on.” A calligrapher takes a blank piece of paper and writes on it in a very beautiful way. I found it to be surprising that Myshkin does not have a font of his own and has to use Pafnutiy’s instead. And it is significant that Pafnutiy is a religious person. I get a feeling that Myshkin is compared with a calligrapher of people’s souls. Wherever he goes, he makes an impression on other people’s souls as a calligrapher would on a piece of paper.

I get a feeling that Myshkin is not as simple as he appears to others. He openly admits that he thinks that he is smarter than anyone when prompted by Aglaya. Moreover, at the end of his story about Mary he says that he was describing the story with such honesty not because of simplemindedness but because perhaps he had his own mysl’ (thought, or plan as in “zamysel”).

Going to stop here for now. I am really open for thoughts, reactions and/or criticism.

Can't reply to the comment , so I am posting a new entry :) -- For Yelena

Yelena, your analysis took my suggestions a step further and now it all makes more sense. In addition to Myshkin's last name, his first name is Lev. I completely overlooked this at first. What an oxymoron being called a Lion Little-Mouse. Isn't there a famous fable about a lion and a mouse? Maybe Dostoevsky was making us aware of the depth of the contradiction within Myshkin? His personality strikes me as bi-polar: he is either too happy or too sad. At least in his dialogues with others. Thoughts on that?

I am going to discuss the name theme and patterns that I saw throughout the first 4 chapters:

What's up with people's last names? Dostoevsky created an entire zoo: so far there is one domesticated animal -- Nastasya Filippovna Barashkova (little baby ram), Pritsyn (just means a bird), and a full range of kinds of birds -- Lebedev (Swan), Ivolgin (Oriole). And, of course, Myshkin (a little mouse). Also, Rogozhin (a cloth for a rough bag), Epanchin (a wide armless trench coat). I will be looking for more as I continue reading.

First impressions: NF's last name means a pretty stubborn animal, domesticated, usually a male (baran), but totally taken the edge away. Barashek is a very awwwwwww-kind of way of referring to a baran (ram). NF is stubborn, forcefully domesticated and powerless? Maybe that's why she is acting up the way she does? I wonder what it is exactly that happened when NF was around 20 (other than Totsky announcing that he wanted to get married). Why was her fate decided? Why did she start being perceived as so dangerous by Totsky since she stopped caring about herself and was ready to destroy (pogubit') herself? Again, why barashek? Maybe Dostoevsky was making a connection with the scape goat? I know it's a stretch, just something that came to mind. Since she was ready to sacrifice her very life in order to prove something to the world (but what?).

As to the aviary (bird zoo), I don't have to say much as of yet. Lebedev (swan) sounds like a honorable name to me.

Before I forget, Rogozhin's last name is very peculiar as well. Rogozha means rough fabric from which huge bags (for sugar or potatoes) was made back in the day (and even now sometimes...) Significance of Rogozhin's name? He IS rough. He is strong. He is a bag? Hmmm. With respect to NF maybe? Will think about this more as I go along. Any thoughts on this, anyone?

Epanchin's name makes me draw a parallel with Rogozhin. Cloth theme. Why is the General arm-less? We'll see.

And finally Myshkin. Knyas' Myshkin just sounds like an absolute cacophony. A royal title followed by such an unfortunate name: a little mouse. Parallel with NF! Her last name is a diminutive of another animal, though a bigger one. First impressions about his name: really appropriate in a way. Myshkin is a like a little mouse. I even picture him looking like one: thin features, mousy hair, etc. Like a mouse, he has no home and lives off of others. More on this later. :)

Please share your thoughts on this. I am really curious to see if anyone thought the names are significant too. On to commenting on your replies.

Oh, and biblical references and themes. Jeeeesus (pun intended). Prof. Meerson has to be in Heaven when she discusses the Idiot (another pun intended). :P

Myshkin's Language

After reading Anya and Yelena's entries, I recalled a passage where the prince's language struck me as rather odd and perhaps suggesting a not so innocent or pleasant character. In Chapter II, when he begins his discussion of the death penalty with the valet, he says, "во Франции всё головы рубят" ("in France they're constantly chopping heads off."). In Russian ("рубить") as in English ("chop"), this verb is usually used in reference to wood and other objects, not people, so it sounds rather strong in this context, even rude and morbid. When the valet asks if the criminals scream while being guillotined, the prince says "Куды!...Голова отскочит так, что и глазом не успеешь мигнуть" ("How can they?...The head jumps off before you can blink."). It's been a while since I studied Russian lit, but to me, "куды" sounds pretty colloquial (because it's Ukrainian) and, again, inappropriate in this context. "Отскочит" ("jumps off/breaks off/comes off") also sounds strange here. The verb "скакать" usually means "jump, skip," so it seems as if the head acquires a life of its own upon being cut off, which is pretty morbose. Of course, here it is probably used colloquially ("breaks off/comes off"), but that still sounds disrespectful. This contrasts with the lofty language that follows about the merits of this particular criminal and the injustice of capital punishment in general. Why does Myshkin speak like this? Judging by his ability to mimic and interpret writing styles, he is very conscious of his word choice. His language also takes a morbid twist when he says that Rogozhin "зарезал бы ее (Н.Ф.)" ("would cut her [N.F.] with a knife/cut her throat").

Perhaps he does this simply to emphasize the horror of both capital punishment and murder, to underline death's terrifying normality (colloquial language) and abnormal meaninglessness (chopping is for wood, not heads, and jumping is for living creatures). Might this be a sign of his personal fear of death? In any case, I think that his preoccupation with this subject must have to do with his illness. As an epileptic he is, in a way, sentenced to death. He knows for sure that he will never be able to have a normal life, at least in economic, academic, social, professional, and interpersonal terms. He even says, "Что же с душой в эту минуту делается, до каких судорог ее доводят?" ("What happens to the soul in that moment, what compulsions do they provoke in it?"). The word "судорога" ("cramp/convulsion") immediately brings to mind seizures, which are common to epilepsy. It appears then that Myshkin identifies with those convicted to death on both a physical and emotional level.

In fact, he indirectly explains through this discussion that this is why he is an "idiot." He says that someone convicted to death "с ума сойдет или заплачет. Кто сказал, что человеческая природа в состоянии вынести это без сумасшествия?" ("will go crazy or start crying. Who said that human nature is in the condition to undergo this without madness?"). In this sense, Myshkin's "idiocy" is not as funny or quaint or pleasant or strange as others may think--it's a coping mechanism, or at least a natural reaction to a doomed life. This is a bit reminiscent of the Underground Man, another of Dostoievski's great and complex characters.
In this fatalism, Myshkin also resembles Nastasia Filipovna, who, according to the narrator, stopped valuing her life long ago and is also, despite her new, bold character, trapped in a life she did not choose.

Also, like Misha said, here the connection between character and author is crystal clear. Aside from the fact that Dostoievski too had epilepsy, Myshkin says, "Может быть, и есть такой человек, которому прочли приговор, дали помучиться, а потом сказали: "Ступай, тебя прощают". Вот такой человек, может быть, мог бы рассказать." ("Maybe there does exist someone who heard the sentence, was allowed to suffer, and then was told, 'Go, you've been forgiven.' Now that kind of person, perhaps, could tell us about it"). Myshkin, therefore, is Dostoievski himself, but before the lifesaving news of the czar's forgiveness. The author has, in that case, a comparative advantage over his character: he can see the whole picture, perhaps even understand it, and most importantly, he has hope, although he may imply here that having epilepsy is almost as fatal as being sentenced to death.

A first impression

On the back cover of my book, there's a quote from Dostoyevsky:

"My intention is to portray a truly beautiful soul."

I'll admit this has raised some early questions and perhaps even colored my reading of this novel. I hope to further flesh out what a "truly beautiful soul" means and where it can be found in the book (guessing it's Myshkin), and also how it compares with the other characters in the book.

My first thought is that, in my own opinion, part of being "truly beautiful", in the sense I think Dostoyevsky intends, is giving (yourself, aide, etc.) to others. Myshkin doesn't fit with this. Although he claims it's not his intention to take anything from anyone, he is on the receiving end of others' charity and, at least so far, is not giving them anything meaningful in return.

P.1, Chapter 3: Prince Myshkin is interrupted, by Gen. Epanchin, for the first time...

First, I think it's interesting to point out that Prince Myshkin is actually the first of the pair to make an interruption:

The general was on the point of smiling, but on second thought he checked himself...

"I have little time for making acquaintances as a rule," observed the general, "but as you have no doubt some object..."

"That's just what I expected," Myshkin interrupted, "that you would look for some special object in my visit."

I think the feeling we are supposed to get from all the following interruptions is that General Epanchin is trying to figure out as quickly as possible what Myshkin is all about, or, as I mentioned in another comment elsewhere, he is trying to get to the punchline. And though Myshkin may not *directly* ask for anything, he succeeds in getting quite a lot out of the general, who seems not to like to give charity (from the way the servant worries about being tricked into showing Myshkin in to G. Epanchin if he is only "some sort of impostor who had come to beg" and also M. Epanchin's incredulous response when her husband announces their visitor).

It is in response to one of General Epanchin's numerous interruptions that Myshkin recounts his story and here is when we first hear mention of Myshkin being an "idiot". This description comes from Myshkin himself, in no uncertain terms (in my book, separated by parenthesis, it says, "Myshkin used that word 'idiot'"). From this point it is repeated of him, perhaps with different implications/connotations, but he first identified with it. This also brings up the question of whether people listen to him... I think they do, although certainly not completely, but this seems to work in his favor. People he interacts with seem to have a very favorable impression of him, despite the fact that he appears to give them very little to go on.

Some thoughts on the first three chapters

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.