The Idiot

Awesome. His books take fucking forever for me to read but the way he captures ideas is so clever it makes it all worth it.

finished today.

this guy is right

He tried to depict a human being very similar to Jesus Christ, but I guess he failed at some point. Sometimes I was sure Dostoyeveski dind't have a clue to what was he writing about, but after some research I found out his main objective was to "to depict a completely beautiful human being".

In my opinion, there is a touch of Crime and Punishment on it, but I prefer way more Brother's Karamazov, but I loved the insight the book gave me: Jesus Christ was somewhat a sort of an Idiot too, everybody abused his goodwill.

>but I guess he failed at some point
Why failed? He depicted faithfully what this sort of person would function like and the title of the book suggests that Dostoevsky himself realized it too. To me that is a success.

probably my second favorite book in all of russian lit

I grew bored of it fairly quickly even though I like every other of Dostoyevskys works that I've read

I didn't love it. It was ok, but I found it was rambling in some points.

What in C&P did you relate to the Idiot?

Yes, but only writing one or two characters doesn't make a good book.

The plot was too random and messy, some characters were useless and anoying, only Myshkin and Ippolit had some depth to be honest.

He didn't achieved the same level of his other works, but the book have its jewels (like Ippolit letter or Myshkin first talk with the Epantchin's family that without a doubt inspired Camus works).

The last part with Rogozhin and Myshkin.

His worst work.

Has anyone read Demons? I liked CP and BK, but didn't care for the idiot. Would you say that Demons is closer to the former than the latter?

...

I really liked the Idiot, his only better work IMO is the Karamazov Brothers, but they're in the same tier. I didn't like Demons that much.

Not so, this is his worst work that you've probably never even heard of. And it's not some pre-exile short story either, it's nearly 500 pages long.

It's probably one of the slowest of his novels, at least in the first half. But it is not slow the The Idiot is with filler conversation and whatnot, Demons is a primarily political book and the conversations between the radicals in question center on intellectual ripostes, despair, fedora-tipping atheism, political satire, and of course, murder. In some parts its a lot like Crime and Punishment and Notes From Underground. It definitely requires the most historical context to comprehend and some people say it even foreshadows the rise of liberalism and Lenin

This was my first Dostoievsky book and made me love his writing. I have read all of his major books and some shorter ones, and I admit I've liked most more than that one, but I still like it.

I admit the book is meandering even by Dosto's standards but even if you decide to dismiss the book as bad or at least not as good because of this it doesn't fail to convey aptly its main idea.

>only Myshkin and Ippolit had some depth
That sounds like a kind of random choice. By what measure do you determine depth? I don't find any of them to be notably deeper than most other characters.

I would also recommend 'The Double'. Spine-chilling exploration of personality and mental illness, and the protagonist is one of the most painfully human I've ever read in literature, to the point that I wouldn't notice if someone had put a mirror between the pages.

which was the best girl? the retarded and innocent or the bitter one?

I always dream of a self-hating waifu because only someone like that would be desperate enough to want me.

>ywn have a Polina to mentally torture you

sorry forgot pic

Sexy. I was pretty disappointed with the idiot, but demons sounds really interesting. Thanks.

>only Myshkin and Ippolit had some depth to be honest.
You don't think Nastasya had depth? She's one of his most challenging characters, in my opinion.

Not at all. Myshkin and Ippolit had a lot of traits and problems that Dostoievsky itself had in his life (epilepsy and a near death experience), they had a logic/philosophy you could correlate and understand.

I'm not saying the others lack depth - it is Dostoievsky artwork after all - but I can say that compared to his others novels there is a lack of characters with striking depth on this book.

She had potential.
Most of the depth of Nastasya was constructed in the first part of the book, but at the end of the book the autor forgot about her.

I could never understood completely her motivations, even Myshkin couldn't explain what was the problem of Nastasya, to him the problem of her was that "she was crazy" or "a child in an adult body".

Anyway, that's only a hunch, but I guess that the characters of Nastasya (first part of the book) and Aglaya (last part of the book) were a complete character that Dostoievsky decided to divide.

I just finished it today. It certainly has moments that are compelling and engaging, but the characters are also somewhat fragmented, like you say. Either that or he really wanted the reader to infer as to what made them tick. There's no real reason Rogojin did what he did, and he never went into a real exploration of Natasya's haunted past that turned her into a nut. Some of these characters (aglaya) could have been autobiographical characters from his life. I find it shocking that it came AFTER Underground and C&P. Just isn't nearly as profound, imho

I really think it might be your problem that you couldn't understand Nastasya, though. It's understandable that Myshkin wouldn't be able to understand her because he's so different from everybody else. There are lots of analyses on Nastasya's character that you could look up if you're interested, though.

Just finished tbk. Should I read c&p or the idiot next?

C&P

Also I didn't mean to sound rude with saying you might not understand her. I just meant that it might not be Dostoevsky's fault. Like I said earlier, I think she's one of the harder characters of his to understand, but I could be wrong.

Just started reading it a few days ago. So far I'm enjoying it a lot more than I expected to. The prince is an interesting character that reminds me a lot of alyosha from TBK. I feel like dosto used that character as kind of a self-insert, so it's cool to see a little deeper into his head.

If you see Idiot as melodramatic soap opera, it has a lot of extra text. If you dig a bit deeper, you can, for example, find the outcome of the scene with Myshkin, Nastasya, and Aglaya pretty reasonable, or explain why Myshkin is clearly not a second coming of the Christ, and is but a man following the Holy... Book.

> self-insert
Do you know how Dostoevsky actually lived?

I wonder if Dostoevsky was trying to say that following the Gospels in a fallen world can drive you to madness...that good intentions ultimately cannot sustain someone.

I doubt devout Christian like Dostoyevsky just came to conclusion that abiding God's commandments is a dead end.

Yes.

I don't think he's saying it's a dead end. Myshkin being good was an end unto itself. I do believe he's saying that being virtuous in a fallen world is hard, but ultimately Myshkin brought a lot of light into the lives of those he encountered.

Great work. You need to be a bot patient for it but you will appreciate it.

Is that Jon Snow in the cover?

>compared to his others novels there is a lack of characters with striking depth on this book
Compared to his other books it appeals more to emotion than to intellect, I think. I believe this is one of the reasons it is less popular not just because it's meandering. His work usually appeals most to fedora-tippers though ironically he tried to reject that sort of thinking.

I don't know about depth but all of the characters and their reasoning are very easy to understand.

>There's no real reason Rogojin did what he did
I have no idea what you are referring to.
>and he never went into a real exploration of Natasya's haunted past that turned her into a nut
You have all of the information you need to understand her. Further exploration is not necessary because the book is not about childhood trauma.

I just finished it a couple of weeks ago, the first I've read of Dostoevsky. I found it to be exceptional.

You know, mayve something he did with a knife or something

There's a good Russian TV version on YouTube (with subs).

> good Russian TV version
Melodramatic fireworks with famously good actors and famously cost-cut production (most, if not all of the scenes were shot with a single camera). How do you show inner spiritual questions on screen anyway?
> with subs
Unless someone took the original text and remade them, these are extremely shitty subs made by random unsupervised contractors.

You can use it for reference, though.
youtube.com/watch?v=b7jIDFC2jPU
youtube.com/watch?v=-n-P6clwKwg

What is hard to understand about that?

Wrong. C&P is his best. Even better than BK.

it's hard to tell, C&P is a complete story, BK is setting up many pieces that were supposed to lead somewhere on the next books, so you can be more satisfied with C&P but all the different threads on BK may stimulate more your mind even though they are not resolved in a satisfying way

> “Crime and Punishment”, on the other hand, was resolved in a satisfying way

Have we read the same book?

Not him but the ending of C&P was perfect.

it's a redemption story, what else did you expect?