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.

The Idiot by Dostoevsky,
If you are reading reviews about this book it's very much likely that this is not your first Dostoevsky novel and that you are a fan of his work like most of the people here and most of the people elsewhere even if they don't know it yet, IF Not I highly recommend reading his other works first like Crime and punishment or notes from the underground..
This book however is very easy and smooth read but not the easiest one to understand, understanding Dostoevsky as a person first will shape the understanding of such work imo.

I usually write a review about a book in a couple of days, this book however got me thinking for weeks, scenes, dialogues all events are spacing through my head, It is the perfect work about psychology in literature, it pushes, and is what a book is all about.
The story is pretty simple; The Idiot (the protagonist) is a Prince named Myshkin.

Spoiler

the Prince diagnosed with a disease for being "Idiot", sent to Switzerland to recover, comes back after his mainland Russia, falls sick again, sent back to Switzerland.

This book is Brilliant.. this book you can savour slowly and eagerly.
I cant say I totally understood the book, it may need some re-reads for deeper understanding but here what i think.


This book is about religion; darkly, Dostoevsky mentioned religion in many different ways in this book;

The painting is the most obvious indication, "The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb" by Hans Holbein, that was hanged in the spooky dark room inside Rogozhin’s house. The painting had a strong impact on Dostoevsky in his real life the first time he encountered it, he froze for 15minutes and almost had epileptic seizure, there is a whole section in wikipedia if you search this painting about Dostoevsky's reaction to the painting and the signification in this book. The first time the protagonist "The Idiot Prince" viewed this painting he froze (just like the author did) and quoted "it has the power to make the viewer lose his faith", which could symbolise faith and doubt and the role of suffering in faith, Later a Nihilist dying character "Ippolit" mentioned this same painting noting that it demonstrates the victory of 'blind nature' over everything, which reflects the doubt via Nihilism which is a counterpoint to Myshkin's faith. This conflict between faith and nihilism is a philosophical undercurrent running through the novel, posing the question: Is faith sustainable in the face of suffering and death?

Beginning from the name of the book "The idiot" that can be translated after studying the Princes's character to "The Holy Fool".
The Protagonist embodies the archetype of the “Holy Fool,” which refers to someone whose innocence and moral purity make them seem out of place in a corrupt, cynical world. This idea is rooted in Russian Orthodox Christianity, where the “Holy Fool” often acts as a moral mirror to the society around them. Myshkin’s actions and words often reveal the lack of morality of those he interacts with, but instead of being admired, he is misunderstood, scorned, and even pitied.

Being a childlike character with his purity and idealized personality, it contrasted the true nature of people surrounding him, revealing the moral ambiguity and corruption like in Rogozhin, Nastasya Filippovna, and Ganya.. This tension between innocence and corruption forms one of the core conflicts of the novel, as Myshkin’s inability comply with the norms put by society leads to his alienation and eventual downfall.

Other mention to the religious idea of the book is Myshkin giving a speech (Sermon like) in an aristocrats's party, warning about the Catholic Church while praising the guests and critics the western Liberals. which reflect the political aspect of the book.
It is a sort of clash between Nationalism and Western Liberalism throughout the novel, Dostoevsky contrasts traditional Russian values with Western liberalism, particularly through Myshkin’s speech at the party, Myshkin’s defense of Russian Orthodoxy and nationalism aligns with Dostoevsky’s own political views.

Romance, Love and Desire are few sub-themes present in the story,full of complexity and has kind of prophecy to it (which can be a point to the religious side of the book), The Prince had similar romantic encounter in the past that he is living again with the same course of the event like a deja vu. Unlike traditional romantic love, the relationships in the novel are often destructive and based on general belief. Myshkin’s love for Nastasya Filippovna is more of a compassionate, self-sacrificial love, which contrasts with Rogozhin’s obsessive and possessive desire for her. The romance is like a web of Selfless and unattainable Love, obsessive desire, treason and tragedies which is a reflexion of societal corruption.

Dostoevsky often uses illness as a metaphor for the moral sickness of society. The characters physical and mental sickness mirror the larger social dysfunctions of Russian aristocracy and the intellectual malaise of the time, characterized by nihilism and spiritual decay. Mental illness, alongside physical illness, plays a critical role in shaping the novel’s characters and their interactions. Most of the characters either evil or with a sense of morality have some kind of sickness..

Another Mention is Death and redemption, death in its physical form as well as a symbolic death of ideals

Spoiler

The General's death, Marie and Nastasya's tragic end, Ippolit’s obsession with death, and Myshkin’s constant proximity to death..

contributes to the morality in the book
Myshkin’s desire to save them reflects his Christ-like attempt to redeem a fallen world but his failure mirror the limits of human goodness in a corrupt world.

The Psychological depth of the characters, the exploration of suffering, redemption and struggle, the complexities of love, the religious tension between faith and doubt, the critique of aristocracy and political and social concerns about the future of Russia in the face of Western influences...
These interconnected themes shape "The Idiot" into a a profound, complex and legendary work requiring multiple reads to fully grasp its depth.