Una lettura sicuramente affascinante, che cattura e tiene inchiodati.
Risulta davvero difficilissimo mettere via il libro, e visto che la trama è spesso molto debole questo la dice lunga sulla capacità stilistica e narrativa di Dostoevskij.

La Russia di metà '800 che ci dipinge davanti agli occhi ci cattura, e ci ritroviamo immersi in questo turbinio di persone appartenenti alla parte alta del ceto medio e a quella inferiore del ceto più elevato.

Tutto gira intorno alla figura dell'idiota del titolo, il Principe Myškin, rientrato in Russia dopo aver passato diversi anni in Svizzera affidato alle cure di un famoso dottore. Il Principe infatti, fin da piccolo, soffriva di una grave forma di epilessia, e questi attacchi lo avevano lasciato molto provato e probabilmente danneggiato a livello cerebrale.
Infatti, per quanto ormai molto migliorato, mentalmente il Principe sembra quasi un bambino: è adulto, ne è consapevole e sa perfettamente comportarsi come tale e come un gentiluomo, ma l'aspetto preponderante del suo carattere è il candore, un candore infinito che lo rende diversissimo da ogni altra persona.

Il Principe è l'innocenza e la bontà, parla sempre con sincerità e spontaneità, non è in grado di vedere il male nel prossimo e anzi vi scorge sempre e solo il bene. Perdona tutti, fa proprie le sofferenze altrui, è predisposto al martirio per il prossimo e lo fa con gioia.
E' una figura di incomparabile bellezza, in mezzo a persone terrene e materiali che al suo cospetto paiono ingrigire e appiattirsi.
E tutti si sentono in qualche modo attratti da lui, ma una tale ingenuità e bontà non è pienamente comprensibile o accettabile. C'è chi ne è attratto come amico ma vorrebbe cambiarlo o farlo rientrare negli standard accettati dall'epoca ma più spesso le persone alterneranno momenti di profonda amicizia a momenti di odio reale.
Anche perché il Principe, con la sua bellissima bontà, riesce sempre a mettere a nudo gli altri, a tirare fuori ciò che hanno dentro.

Il fulcro della trama è ovviamente una complessa storia d'amore, con il Principe preso tra due fuochi, due donne simili e al contempo diversissime.
Una storia d'amore malata e condannata, circondata da altre storie d'amore simili, tutte storie d'amore che sfociano nella psicosi, nella malattia.
Un carosello di relazioni d'amore e d'odio, d'amicizia e di rivalità, in uno scenario quasi surreale come la Russia che si avvicina al ventesimo secolo perdendo gli ideali e la coesione che l'hanno sempre caratterizzata, prestando il fianco a lunghe dissertazioni sulla pena di morte, sull'ateismo, sul cattolicesimo, sulla moderna società russa che si andava delineando. Ma sempre, e questo è l'incredibile, senza annoiare o senza risultare pesante.

Probabilmente l'autore non è riuscito nel suo ruolo di delineare perfettamente la figura rivoluzionaria che voleva creare con il Principe Myškin, ma la sua penna non ha fallito nel compito di intrattenere meravigliosamente il lettore.

Follow along the intrigue of a slice of Russian pre-communist society as they fight and make up, fall in love, party and suffer. All this is observed by our protagonist, who may indeed be an idiot but also might just be ignorant of the conventions of society because he was raised in a sanatorium. The poor prince has nothing but kindness in his heart for all fellow humans and infuriates the women who love him by not seeing why he needs to choose just one. A must read for anybody interested in classical literature.

I also went through a Russian stage in college, where I was fascinated by Russian authors. I am not going to pretend I understood much, but I knew I was reading the masters.

A wild wild ride on this one. Some parts could easily fit in a modern rom-com while other parts are about as dark as classical literature gets. Some of the quotes are absolutely incredible and I love the premise that Dostoevsky was working with, but very confused by the disjointed and strange structure. I also feel like some of the characters get forgotten throughout.

My favorite part is how you get such an intimate look into Dostoevsky trying to process the world around him and his own life through this book.

What happens when you take someone that embodies Christ's charge to 'become as little children' and stick them into a society of selfish and imperfect people? Prince Muishkin, known as the idiot, is Dostoevsky's tragic answer to this question and now one of my favorite literary characters. This book is a hard one to rate, I think anyone could make a good argument for 3, 4, or 5 stars. While part 1 is among the best things I've ever read, the rest of the book can get slow. At no point though does it stop asking big questions and challenging the reader. Hilarious at times and heartbreaking at others. Especially loved the characters talking about how technology and nihilism in the 1800s was ruining society; it makes me not worry so much about similar thoughts.

The number of characters made this confusing to read and difficult to appreciate. The similarity between the names added to this: the two Generals Ephanchin and Ivolgin, Rogozhin and Radomsky, the three sisters with names starting with A, Varya and Vera. The story was very narrative-driven, which is not particularly appealing to me as a method. There were not any themes which appealed to me and I didn't like Myshkin or think he was a particularly praiseworthy person.

I really need to reread this. I remember loving it, but I must have read it four or five years ago, which isn't a lot, except that I'm so much smarter now than I was four years ago (funny how college does that to a person).

The main plot of this novel involves a truly absurd love triangle that reveals the tyranny of marriage or monogamy in that Prince Myshkin, who is loved by 2 women, loved people in an unselfish way and didn't seem capable of the selfishness required of romantic love. However, his affection for Nastasya and Aglaia must have gone beyond agape and was tied up in his aesthetic appreciation of beauty. It was comedic how he couldn't understand the flirtation and protestations of the two women. I can see how he wouldn't have understood that they loved him because they tended to be horrible to him. The novel was at times mystical, philosophical, theatrical, funny, tragic and stands both as a strong indictment of his society as well as an honest exploration of the revolutionary ideas of the time.
I don't know if this is fair, but many of these characters in their quirkiness reminded me of Dickens, especially Lebedev, while at the same time the Epanchin family were slightly reminiscent of Austin's Bennetts, except LIzaveta is less flighty and much more sympathetic than Mrs. Bennett. I am not saying he was influenced by them because I don't know that. He was writing much later than Austen and Dickens, but this perceived reminiscence added to my enjoyment of the novel. However, I don't remember meeting a character like Myshkin before - he lives on. I am left with the following questions. Did Myshkin find a refuge from the horror he couldn't deal with in his return to idiocy or did he go some place beyond every day reality like a blissed out sufi? I know what I would like to think but sadly I know the answer.