By Garo Kerdelian | Staff Writer
Dostoevsky will slap you in the face, but you’ll forgive him for it.
The Idiot is a literary classic written by Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky in the 1860s. Fundamentally, The Idiot is a story: the tale of a man who returns to Russia from a Swiss sanatorium and becomes entangled in the complex web of the capital’s elite. Yet, this six-hundred page work is also a treasure-trove of Dostoevsky’s social, psychological, and political ideas. In this review, I will touch on both the story and the philosophies underlying it to provide a complete picture of Dostoevsky’s masterpiece.
The main character of the story is Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, a bizarre young man whose adventure starts in the November train going from Warsaw to Saint Petersburg. The book opens with his conversation with Rogozhin, a conceited fellow soon to inherit a fortune and in love with the notorious beauty Nastasya Filippovna, around whom much of the story revolves around. After prying into the Prince’s personal affairs, Rogozhin discovers that the bachelor is returning home with nothing but a small bundle and the title of Prince to his name.
With time, the Prince’s mysterious background unravels itself. Left as an orphan in the hands of his father’s friend Pavlishchev, he had contracted a peculiar disease called “idiocy.” Though his insanity was never fully cured, his situation improved after five years under the care of a Swiss professor who dealt with ailments of the kind.
With neither lodgings nor employment, he now hopes to find assistance from a distant relative of his, Lizaveta Prokofyevna, the wife of the prominent General Yepanchin, who has refused his letters so far. Through his obvious innocence and inadvertent charms, he wins over several people – including the General, his daughters, and the all too desirable Nastasya Filippovna. The plot thickens as several other men are interested in courting the beautiful woman and are willing to put everything on the line – not only huge sums of money, but also all sense of morality. Eventually, the Prince finds himself in a predicament that he cannot resolve without hurting someone he deeply loves.
The Prince’s story is long and entertaining, but what’s most interesting to us here are the reasons for which he is considered by the public to constitute an “idiot.” As the story progresses, the definition of an “idiot” unfolds in front of our eyes through the Prince’s weird character, unique conversational style, and hopeful naivety. First, he lacks a certain capacity and intention to communicate with adults according to established norms, indicating a lack of social maturity and mental development. For instance, in response to a servant’s doubt whether he is from abroad, he simply says, “I have a feeling you wanted to ask if I really am Prince Myshkin, but were too afraid to do so.” Though the servant feels puzzled by him at first, he appreciates Myshkin’s open and straightforward manner that avoids circuitous etiquette. Second, he often acts like a child, acting in a good-hearted and loving manner towards everyone despite his own interests. For example, he absurdly helps Rogozhin, who later becomes his “rival,” (a rival only in Rogozhin’s own eyes) escape with the very woman he loves. Third, he is very naïve and faithful in the power of love and is even rumored to say that he believes beauty can save the world. Believing that everyone acts in good faith and harbors no bad intentions towards him, the Prince’s behavior becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as people enjoy his presence and consider him a very truthful man, but a man always inferior to them in some way or another – a rather naive idiot.
Through the Prince’s unusual personality, Dostoevsky demonstrates how most people have become his polar opposite – cynics who consistently doubt others’ intentions and look down upon everyone but themselves. By touting Myshkin’s childish behavior as an outlier, he shows how people have lost the sense of spiritual love and gratitude towards all creation, a pertinent notion in Christianity, his religion. And contrary to what we expect, our dear idiot turns out to be one of the few characters in the novel who is not morally corrupt and stays an honest man through and through, urging us to reconsider what behavior we consider absurd and what behavior we consider the norm.
As any great work, The Idiot is not only a story; rather, it is complemented by Dostoevsky’s social, political, and psychological commentary. He criticizes the mentality of his day that discourages originality and encourages the pursuit of material contentment and happiness. He writes, “Deficit of imagination has, throughout the whole world, from time immemorial always been considered a prime quality and the highest title of recommendation for men of action, business, and accomplishment.” He continues to explain how success in his society has been defined as a well-drawn path devoid of risk, personal initiative, and creativity, the most successful and practical man deemed to be one of high social rank – a Russian general. On the other hand, inventors and geniuses who go off the beaten path are often considered fools at the start of their careers, and the case is no different with one of the greatest scientists of all – Albert Einstein.
Dostoevsky continues his line of thought in a later part of the book, which is one of the most difficult yet memorable pieces of literature I have ever read. What is especially fascinating, however, is that Dostoevsky’s commentary does not show up in the novel like an article in a newspaper, but as a pretext for explaining the nature of his characters. He discusses the “ordinariness” of most people who often try to become independent and original but inevitably end up being tied in their “constant and immutable ordinariness”. He says that there are generally two types of these people in the world: the “dullards” and the “slightly brighter lot.”
The dullards are happy people who can convince themselves immediately that they are the smartest and most accomplished people in the world. They are characterized by a foolish self-confidence, considering themselves spiritually mature the moment they do something good and creative thinkers the moment they read a book. (Reminds you of anyone?)
On the other hand, the people in the “slightly brighter lot” are generally less happy. Even if they can convince themselves temporarily of their own merit, they are poisoned by a persistent doubt of their own abilities and their lack of originality. This very desire to invent, create or go beyond the beaten path – beyond the “dullards” – can lead these “intelligent” people to debase themselves and act recklessly. For instance, The Idiot’s Gavrila Ivolgin, an aspiring man with no talent and an incessant urge to prove himself, acts condescendingly to the woman he loves, slaps the Prince, and brags about himself, becoming a quite unbearable character.
Dostoevsky’s categorization is pretty heart-breaking to read, as it drives us to question how arrogant we are of our own abilities and reminds us of our own depressing mediocrity. Yet, it also motivates us to escape from the categories by improving ourselves: to overcome the selfish naivety of the dullards to become self-aware of our current capacities. Once in the slightly brighter lot, we ought to exploit our developed talents – to find the practical applications of our education, strive for original ideas of our own, and actually do good instead of believing in goodness. To go beyond the beaten path, however, we still need some vague path. That is the problem with the slightly brighter lot, who try to escape mediocrity with no clear direction and pitfall into resentful absurdity. Therefore, we must have originality guided by purpose, for it is only the person who knows what they want to invent or discover that can actually invent or discover it. Undoubtedly, such personal initiatives require one to forgo the traditional definition of success, overcome the attraction of social status and high rank, and be ready to be taken for a fool – an idiot, perhaps – in pursuit of spiritual development and originality, true originality.
Another notable passage is on capital punishment. “To punish murder by death is an immensely worse crime than the original murder,” writes Dostoevsky. He argues vicariously through Prince Myshkin that the sentence of death is more painful than death itself, as it takes away the last sweetener – one’s last hope. Even a soldier hopes that he may not die in battle, and a man walking on the street in the middle of the night has a faint hope that he will live. In all cases but one, the adventurous spirit of life exists in full vigor even at the moment of death. Yet with capital punishment and execution by the blade, the picture is completely different. The conscious awareness that one is to die inevitably is the greatest torture for a man’s soul. I will never forget Dostoevsky’s description of a live execution in France, a detailed picture of his imagination that no modern film-making and special effects can reproduce in my mind.
His vivid images are often accompanied by profound psychological insights, especially on human paradoxical behavior. He mentions how we tend to magnify disaster to perhaps cope with it, take pleasure in our anger beyond a certain point and succumb to it, and how self-contradictory our social conventions can be.
Overall, The Idiot is a startling reminder of who we are and who we have become as human beings. In flashy style, Dostoevsky reminds us to reconsider our definitions of “success,” “normal,” “idiot,” and more, by exemplifying the moral innocence of Myshkin’s character and showing how morally corrupt people have become. He gives us a strong slap in the face, inducing a tension into our souls to go beyond a “dullard” and aspire to true originality – originality guided by purpose. I definitely recommend reading it – you will find yourself being entertained and enlightened at the same time and relating yourself to certain characters in the book. And perhaps, Dostoevsky will teach both you and me to be more and more like our dear friend the idiot – straightforward, compassionate and naïve individuals, balancing our Orwellian skepticism with a bit of hope, and, most importantly, overflowing with a spiritual love and gratitude towards all creation.