Mishkin

I think the fault is in everyone else. They couldn't accept the prince's empathy and forgiveness and always suspected some ulterior motive.
I think it shows how far gone 19th century society was from the Christian ideal; to the point where a "Christ-like" character can't even survive.
Myshkin was like a Quixote but instead of chivalry he was overcome with forgiveness and empathy in a time when they were no longer relevant. Like Quixote you can see him as a crazy fool or an idealistic hero.

Yeah I would agree with it being on other people. I can't say for certain that it was an exclusively 18th century thing though. Obviously there is the connection to russian society but I think on a deeper level it's a message on virtually all people in all times. It's like how i think the deeper message of Don Quixote is universal, as the imaginative against reality - Myshkin, being the extreme of virtue as a society renders virtue to be, like Quixote, lacks the concession of practical 'realness' in character for the virtuous life to be sustainable. Ultimately it was Dosto saying a person on the extreme of forgiveness and humbleness, while virtuous, is not reconcilable with the world, and a character like Alyosha or Zosima is a better example - people having perhaps the same level of inwardness and virtue as Myshkin but not allowing it to stifle outward action.

I'm on page 114, will try and finish this weekend.

Myshkin just seem like an innocent autist at this point, and I believe Dusty wrote it to condemn society for not having a place for Myshkin. But the truth is that he's a weak manchild with no marketable skills. Why does he deserve sympathy?

>no marketable skills
Dostoevsky wasn't a scum utilitarian

Looks like you haven't read The Insulted and Humiliated.
The sluts and harlots from The Idiot are pretty common stereotypes in Dostoevsky (Nastasya being quite similar to the one in The Gambler).

>(Nastasya being quite similar to the one in The Gambler).
what? no, Nastasya was defiled, sold to a guy that used her as a sex toy, which was tolerated by society, but then shunned and scoffed at when she tried to regain society

but Polina was pure

Degas was not an idiot.

>with no marketable skills.
Consider suicide

He's popular with lost young dudes who seek to validate vague and uninformed spiritual feels (born out of being a wayward loser) with something they perceive carries weight. (19th century Russian literature in this case) This is why dosty is the brainlet's favourite author.

Tbh I don’t think Dostoevsky would say that true love consists in understanding the viewpoint of others. The most fundamental love for him is indelibly tied to self-sacrifice and absolute selflessness, even to that which the individual doesn’t understand. Take Sonya in C&P, for example. She seeks to understand Raskolnikov’s reasoning and justification for his actions, but that knowledge isn’t a condition for her love of him — rather, her seeking it is a result of her love for him. Love comes first, understanding after (and even then, understanding so that one might love more).

Granted, it might be a particular character trait of Myshkin that he mixes up the order of the two in thinking that he has to understand someone in order to love them. But on the whole, Dostoevsky doesn’t think love necessitates rational inquiry; instead, it takes place on a different plane of the human spirit. In fact, most of his female characters (at least the positive ones) tend to understand this better than the male ones do. Individuals like Raskolnikov, the Underground protagonist, etc. actually suffer largely because they seek conscious understanding as a prerequisite for love, which in Dostoecsky’s mind only engenders further isolation and agony until they can get past their overburdening intellect.