I Don't Care About Prince Lev Myshkin; Leave Me Alone

Completely unprompted, I feel it would be in poor taste to end my blogging journey through 19th century Russia without mentioning whether I thought my book was appropriate for the AP English testing.  I don't know if many of you know, but this blog was actually established as an assignment; a gentle push to test the waters of critical literary analysis.

When I chose this book with my life partner Kenny Andrew we knew it would be difficult, and possibly boring, but we knew deep down it would be a good story, and it would definitely make other people think we were smart.  Up to about 200 pages of the novel, I was holding on.  Names were confusing, but I expected this.  Settings were boring, but it was only the beginning of the story.  Plot was... arid, but given the established character personalities, I guessed that some complex, exotic drama would unroll like a magic treasure map in front of my eyes and I could write pages upon pages of blog posts about the deep complexity of each chapter, even more in depth than the essay prompts Mrs. LaClair gives us when we think we've already had enough.  But alas, I am here to say, I hated this book.  And I will honestly say, in the most public setting I have available to me, I fell asleep multiple times reading it.

The actually literary devices used by the author to make a point were basic in nature: foiling between characters, some obvious allusions, dark imagery, depressing tone.  The story seemed like just that: a story.  It was very literal, and included the thoughts of all characters.  Dostoyevsky wrote this novel to examine philosophy of the Russian aristocrats.  I don't think he dove into the world of complex literary symbolism and alternative, subsurface story lines.  The narrator, being omnipotent, could read all notes and whispered messages between Myshkin and his females; leaving little to be inferred.  As I mentioned in a response to a comment Bowman made (shout out to Bowman if you read this), I think the stylistic choice of Dostoyevsky was not only time period based, I honestly think he wanted to make this book long and somber, because that's what genuinely reflects the lives of its characters.  Rogozhin is a lonely, abusive drunk waiting to get the chance to kill his wife.  Nastassya is running from the people she knows love her in hopes that she can punish herself for being rude (I guess? I don't know, she's all over the place).  Ganya is a egotistical ex-soldier who just wants money and for his family to calm down.  Madam Epatchin is afraid her daughters will never marry and die alone (or end up a miserable old woman like her).  Aglaya is a young girl, wanting to marry an older man but being too immature to do so.  Prince Myshkin is abused by society and his lovers because he is kind and exposes himself emotionally to others.  In the end all of them fall back into their hamster wheel; the same or worse than how they started.  This was my "in depth" analysis of the 600 (more like 500+ish, with even a smaller number than that actually retained and processed) pages I read.

That said, it is very difficult for me to state whether this could be applicable to the AP Test.  I will make the statement that I would not want to analyze this book for an AP English test.  It is much too long, and the actually use of devices are drawn out, without any significant quote or section to evoke deeper meaning.  Save for a few historical references, at no point did I read something and think it was anything other than what was literally said.  Mrs. LaClair said that Russian literature from this period was very shallow.  I did not heed her words, and for that I suffer.

But, this in no way should discourage a reader from internalizing Dostoyevsky's The Idiot and whipping it out on their next AP test.  I simply stated it was too difficult for me, I don't want to make a blanket statement that "THIS STORY HAS NO LITERARY VALUE IN ANY SENSE" because I'm sure Fyodor Dostoyevsky, thought of as one of the greatest Russian novelist ever, knew what he was talking about to some degree.  I'm sure someone has and will use this book on an AP English exam.  I just know it won't be me.

If anyone has an questions in reference to the book or Myshkin's journey through the St. Petersburg upperclass, Google it or ask Mrs. LaClair because I'm putting this book away and beginning the process of making room in my brain for more fruitful literature.
Thanks for reading, if anybody did beside Mrs. LaClair, Felicia, and Kenny.
Love and Hugs, Owen

Honestly Good Luck if You Want To Read This

Yes, I am back from the dead, just like it was the third day.  My online presence didn't catch up to me until I received a kind little reminder from Mrs. LaClair in my mailbox saying "Blog!"

And yes, after years of slow and dry text I managed to finish my book.  It was not easy, it was not fun, but it made me feel a lot smarter than I actually am to be reading a book like that.  I also would like to go on record and say that I did not understand it all, but that's what life is all about, right?

(Spoiler, I'm talking about the ending of the book if anyone on this God forsaken planet would choose to read it)

Obviously I'm not going to summarize every event that took place in the book, which was actually just a lot of talking, but I will say the book was consistently paced throughout.  Each scene seemed to be variation of what that happened in the past.  Stylistically it was repetitive and very literal in description.  It seemed that every social event followed the same outline: a large gathering, a subtle fight breaks out across the table/room, more character arrive unannounced (what are the maids doing???), someone storms off or is dragged away, an anecdotal story is recited by a wise man about what just unfolded.  Boom, Dostoyevsky.

In another sense, the impression of characters has almost entirely flipped.  The Epanchin family were the first ones to accept him, especially the mother.  Once she finds about Myshkin and her daughter's rumored engagement, she refers back to him as an idiot, obviously a term he is very sensitive about.  Also after an epileptic seizure Myshkin experiences at a dinner party, the mother is disgusted and says she won't allow her daughter to marry the prince anyways.  Other characters like Ganya and Varya also think of him as stupid and unintelligent; a victim to his epilepsy.  Myshkin looses all of his money and respect from people, but in no fault of his own.  Throughout the many mini stories, rumors, and dinner conversations of the Idiot the only really similarity and concessions I can draw is that Myshkin has never done anything wrong.  He really acts in an ideal form and people think of him as stupid.

One of the (only) literary devices Dostoyevsky uses in this novel is the foiling of two characters.  Characters like Ganya and Rogodzhin are foiled in comparison to their love of Nastassya.  Nastassya and Aglaya and foiled in their treatment towards and from Myshkin.  One of the most obvious foils is between Myshkin and Kolga's friend Hippolite.  Hippolite suffers from a terminal illness and seems upset when his only friend Kolga is more interested in the prince than him.  Foiled together, the prince and Hippolite are both very ill.  Hippolite stays indoors and hates nature.  He doesn't want to socialize or see people; instead of trying to fight his illness he waits to die, saying his time is near anyways.  Myshkin obviously is not like that.  He traveled to Russia to meet his lost family, knowing full well he suffered from epilepsy.  He does not talk about his illness until later in the story when they start happening more often, indicating that it probably wasn't information he wanted to share.  Myshkin wants to embrace the world instead of just sitting and waiting for his illness to take over his life like Hippolite.  I think Dostoyevsky is depicting Hippolite as someone who has given up; developed to show the negative outcome for stopping to figure an illness or conflict.  When Hippolite tries to kill himself, Myshkin sees this as what could happen if he succumbed to his weakness.

Basically the book ends with Myshkin going back to the assylum.  He finally was going to marry a woman he thought loved and respected him, Nastasya, but she left him at the altar for her extremely violent and abusive ex-BF Rogodzhin.  Suprise, Surprise, he stabs her to death, covers her with a blanket, and invited Myshkin to sit on her body.  Nothing good happens.  Nobody really benefits.  God Bless America.

Love Owen

I Think Even The Author Of This Book Got Sick Of It

At this point in the novel the steady movement of time is scrambled to comply with the lack of anything happening.  Each chapter jumps a few months or weeks because even Fyodor himself is running out of things to write.  Basically each character does the same depressing action for a prolonged period and fails to move forward in life.  Prince Myshkin goes to Moscow to find his inheritance, but over the period of time he gives it all away.  Obviously displaying Myshkin's passiveness when faced with demand, to loose all his money is devastating.  This is the only money he has available, and it is taken away by people pretending to be family members or close friends.  Knowing that Myshkin is a highly intelligent person, I wonder if he is actually aware that there were lies, but would rather loose all his wealth than appear rude or unkind.  It would not surprise me given that Myshkin seems to be the only character who values generosity and emotional connections over material goods.  Either way, he's broke.  After spending a little under a year in Moscow, he returns to Saint Petersburg with the same amount of wealth he had before: almost nothing.  This also further perpetuates Dostoyevsky's message behind Myshkin's existence that by being kind, you will be mistreated and abused by the world.
Nastasya is another character being mistreated, but not because of her generosity.  In fact, her circumstances are unique from the other characters.  She was a rude and self centered person, and now she is violently abused by the man who paid for her hand in marriage: Rogozhin.  Although extensive and dull, Dostoyevsky basically explains that Rogozhin beats Nastasya and forces her to go to social events called "orgies" (I'm not actually aware if they really are orgies in the sense of group sex or just massive parties but that's the word that is used to describe what happens.  This is also a non direct translation of the original book in Russian, so orgy could be an inappropriate word to fit the real meaning.  Either way, Nastasya's life sucks.)  She runs away on three separate occasions, but is caught each time.  Clearly not getting the hint, Rogozhin spends the time lapse abusing Nastasya, then finding her after she's run off and returning her home.  True love.
One of the only literary devices used is the personification of Rogozhin's house.  Given this type of Russian literature is very literal and descriptive, this analysis is don't difficult or complex by any means.  At some point in Myshkins travels between Moscow and St. Petersburg he visits Rogozhin's home.  This is also during one of the periods where Nastasya has somehow fled.  Dostoyevsky's description of Rogozhin's living environment is dark, grey, and cold.  As Myshkin approaches the house, he can feel the misery and suffering within.  I don't think it's too much of a leap to assume these details were added to reference Rogozhin and Nastasya's relationship, or even Rogozhin's personality himself.  Keep in mind during all these months with Nastasya, Rogozhin is heavily drinking and lacking of a job.  His home is a wreck.  Myshkin confesses to Rogozhin that is Nastasya ever fled to the Prince he would take her in and ask her to marry him.  In a rather confusing twist, Rogozhin confesses that Nastasya does want to be with the prince, but feels she should be punished for her actions by marrying Rogozhin.  She also said the prince was too good for her.  This clearly contrasts to the girl that was introduced in the beginning of the novel, one who ego preceded her in most house holds.  Her change comes with the introduction of Myshkin to the society.  His presence continued to evoke the true nature of the people he surrounds.  Perhaps Dostoyevsky's real message is the with kindness comes the true nature of people, but often the true nature of people is malevolent and evil.  A classic love story!  Would recommend for up and coming readers.
Everyone say something nice to Kenny; he is very behind on his reading.  (Mrs. Laclair is too but I won't mention that.)
Love Owen

Emotionally Abusing the Maids Because I Can

The second section of reading mainly revolved around Nastasya's dinner party; a high class gathering of the elite in St. Petersburg.  Through invitation or just showing up, all the main characters that have been mentioned, including Prince Myshkin himself, attend.  Although mostly dialogue about wars and money, this scene was actually very telling of personalities.  I would even dare say this is the most character development that's taken place in the story so far.
Nastasya herself is a wreck for her own dinner party.  Skittish and flustered, she is described as appearing ill.  When all the party guests sit down at the table, she appears feverish.  As time progresses, she only gets worse.  I don't completely understand this detail being stressed, but obviously I think it pertains to Nastasya being uncomfortable.  So many important people in her life coming together to decide whether she will marry someone she doesn't love would be stressful.  She just seems out of character compared to her earlier, rather rude and egotistical self.
A party game is suggested, one that I personally love and can't wait to propose myself, in which each person must go around the table and state the worst act they have ever committed.  Obviously being met with some opposition, Nastasya quickly informs the party goers that participation is mandatory.  I think this shows her interest in the genuine morals of the people she surrounds herself with.  She genuinely wants drama to happen (this is also why many guests describe her as feverish).
Each story told seems to give slight inside into character.  Ferdyshtchenko (say that 10 times) opens with his story of stealing 3 rubles a few years pervious (I don't know how much that is so don't ask).  Although seemingly harmless and definitely not the worse thing he's ever done, he did later inquire that he blamed it on a maid who was then punished severely and fired.  This is met with laugher, given that all these people are insanely wealthy and couldn't care less.  The next story comes from Ganya, and I think it is entirely false.  He wants to impress his future wife Nastasya so that she will fall in love with him the same way that he has fallen in love with her money.  He tells the story of being an imperial Russian soldier and occupying a small town in Siberia.  He claims his worst act ever committed was yelling at an old woman (who later died) for taking a pot from him.  Given Ganya's military history, extreme temper, and strict preference for wealth over any human being, I think the story actually shows a lot about his character in the sense that he fabricated the whole thing.  The final story is long and boring and comes from Nastasya's previous/forced lover Totsky.  I didn't completely follow it, but in essence it was a complex version of the real life occurrence of what happened between him and Nastayasa.  He claims that he helped a young man ruin another couples relationship, which is just a glorified way of saying he helped Ganya take her away from him.  I didn't really care about his story because obviously it was fake and really just a waste of 6 pages.
In the end Nastasya sort of goes crazy (as we all do) and says she's not marrying Ganya because he only wants her for her money.  She also denies Prince Myshkin's sudden proposal of marriage (this is still all happening at the party table in front of guests) which I think was more vanity related.  Nastaya is a lot more intelligent than I expected.  To make the men that lust after her suffer, she openly states that she is too worthless to be with any of them, and agrees to accept a bunch of money (I don't know how much; it was in Russian currency) from the (rich) town drunk, essentially performing an act of high prostitution.  In a sassy, movie manner, she then throws the money into the fire pit and tells Ganya he can fetch it.  Probably my favorite part in the book so far is that Ganya does go to the fire place and get the money out, not before letting some of it burn to protect his vanity.
This book finally got a little interesting, but I'm still not even halfway through it.  In my defense, Kenny and Mrs. L are also behind.
Comment your favorite way to ruin a high-class Russian dinner party and if you would fish a wad of money out of a burning fire.
Love Owen

Rich, Old, Bitter, Russian People Drinking and Complaining

Dostoyevsky's The Idiot opened with the electrifying tale of a noble prince's return home to lush and vibrant St. Petersburg.  In the short portion I've already read of the novel the Prince crosses paths with kings, magicians, and priests, each with their own interesting and vivacious personality.  I can't wait for Prince Lev to find the golden treasure!

Actually the novel is very bland and uneventful.  Almost all scenes that have taken place are in formal, serious dialogue between old, rich, Russian men.  The main character Lev is returning home, but "home" as in Russia in general, considering he doesn't have anywhere to actually go.  Those he has met are other rich Russian families characterized mostly by alcoholism, bribery, and subtle acts of domestic abuse; also the fact that each character has three different names each consisting of about 12 letters and a slew of nicknames casually used depending on the audience. The setting is bland and cold.  Each house is described either as large and hollow or small and uncomfortably compacted.

All of the native Russians seemed to be perplexed by the fact that the prince is highly intelligent, thus further indicating the lack of independent thought coming from these noble families.  One specific family, the Epancins, has a set tradition of what each of the daughters do.  Every single day in the common room, one daughter paints, the other plays the piano, and the last one, Aglaya, “just sits there and does nothing.”  Households are flowcharts of power, with the eldest military man being at the top.  Most all of the elderly men relate to each other through an addiction to alcohol and killing Ottomans near the Turkish border at some point. One old man told the story of how he threw a dog out of the window of a train, to which the room responded with a hearty laugh and moved on.  Each daughter patiently waits for the day she can be sold to the man who brings the greatest dowry.  Each wife patiently waits to die.  The life of 19th century Russian aristocrats seems exhilarating.

The only real literary significance I can draw from the reading so far is the fact that the prince is not similar to other characters.  He has the ability to draw the truth out of people, and because of it is usually hated by those who don’t have the same ability.  His title, the Idiot, comes from people usually mistaking him for someone mentally handicapped.  Many characters grow angry with his questions and inquires because they poke the truth at sensitive subjects.  I think of the prince as a mirror, being passive enough to only reflect back the bad things that people give to him.  So far, the prince is the only one is the story not to be depicted as gloomy and hateful.

P.S. Google Slavic patronymic names and figure out yours.  Russians use them a lot I guess.  I personally think it's just to make everything harder.
Love Owen Robertovich Geary