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