Literary Devices: Few but Impactful

In The Idiot, Dostoyevsky does not use a multitude of literary devices, but the few he does use are used forcefully and throughout the entire work.  Through an interesting, changing point of view, flashbacks and foreshadowings, and a masterful use of a stream of consciousness technique, Dostoyevsky uses few literary techniques, but he uses them in a beautiful way, pushing them all to their full potential.  

Dostoyevsky uses a very unique writing style, suddenly at random intervals breaking away from the storyline and going into 1st person narrative.  While this was initially distracting and frankly a little annoying, it grew on me, and as I said in an earlier post, it became almost comforting to me.  Having breaks in this massive text for the author to provide me with some words of encouragement, I soon came to enjoy and look forward to these breaks in the story and the little check-ins from Dostoyevsky.  He uses these brief story breaks to employ some of the only literary devices in the novel, as the foreshadowings and flashbacks would be presented by Dostoyevsky himself.  This also makes interpreting Dostoyevsky's literary devices a lot easier.  You can trust that the text is trustworthy if the author himself is the one explaining it.

In addition to this interesting point of view style and the scarce but effective devices, Dostoyevsky uses a very convincing and realistic stream of consciousness technique.  His writing style shows how jumbled and incoherent thought processes can be, with frequent breaks in dialogue and narrative, using dashes and parentheses.  This writing style helps the reader get directly into the characters' and narrator's head, as you are able to follow their thoughts and the frantic way they deal with whatever is thrown their way.

Dostoyevsky does not use many literary devices, relying on multiple strong characters and a beautifully complex and layered plot to carry his story along.  That being said, Dostoyevsky's use of stream of consciousness, flashbacks and foreshadowings, and point of view are used masterfully, helping the reader understand all the complexity in front of them.

The Theme: Known from the Start, Barely Understood 564 Pages Later

The theme of Dostoyevsky's The Idiot is one that is pretty simple.  As I wrote in a separate post, it's summed up at the end of the blurb on the back of my copy of the book ("A sanatorium is the only place for a saint.")  Prince Myshkin ultimately falls victim to society, ending up broke, homeless, and mentally unstable.  He returns to Switzerland to be cared for by doctors once again, after being left by both of the women whom he loved.  One of them (Aglaia Epanchin) marrying a con artist and living a mediocre and abused life, and the other (Natasya Filippovna) running off with a previous lover and later getting stabbed to death by said lover.  So the theme is nice guys finish last.  Easy, right?  Not quite.  Because as pupils of Mrs. LaClair, we love (and quite simply need) to dig deeper.  Why?  Why was Myshkin unable to be happy in life despite being selfless and, quite possibly, a saint?

Myshkin is laughed at from the very beginning of the story.  As I've discussed in earlier blog posts, everyone he talks to regards him as an idiot.  The fact that he cares for others above himself, listens intently and genuinely, and has the desire and the capability to forgive those who wrong him paints him as an outsider.  In 1800s Russia, people care about power, money, and social class.  Anyone who does not care about these things is childish, naive, and, quite frankly, stupid.  And that's the bill that Myshkin fits.  Throughout the entire novel, Myshkin continually puts human connection before any material or social gain.  He tries to make friends with everyone he meets, and when he does come into a large sum of money, he willingly gives a fair amount of it away to numerous people who lie and claim he owes them.  When given the chance, he then forgives these people when he finds out, and doesn't ask for the money back.  Myshkin just simply is different than everyone else, he does not care about what they do, and it costs him.

Ultimately Myshkin's good nature gets the better of him, as he is very open to manipulation.  As stated before, he is cheated out of large sums of money, but in addition to that, whenever one of the women he is interested in seems to be in any sort of distress, he quickly will come to her aid.  This is not a bad thing by any means, but as the two women hate each other and one of them (Natasya) abandons him after he finally chooses to marry her, it's evident that Myshkin's nurturing personality gets him only into trouble.  These events, plus the constant harassment of people looking down on him, drive Myshkin into deep sadness.

After all that happens in the story, it honestly is still difficult and painful to try and understand the theme of this novel.  It's clear that because Myshkin is such a good person, he ultimately falls through the cracks and is unable to be happy.  Does that mean that there would have been a happier ending if he had shown some ruthlessness and a lack of compassion?  Sure.  If he had been stern with women and unaffected by their seduction, he would likely have married one and had a healthy relationship.  However, wasn't his selfless personality what won the affection of the women in the first place?  If he had been strict with his money and not given any away, he would have had a fortune to himself.  But is money all that important?  To Myshkin it isn't.

I think that the theme of this book is, as I said, one that is very simple, but it's still open to a lot of different levels and directions of interpretation.  Dostoyevsky's style of writing makes everyone feel sorry for Myshkin, while also explaining rather plainly why it was clear his personality would eventually be his downfall.  Is this still the case today?  Do nice guys always finish last?  Does money and power trump personality and compassion on a daily basis?  In some cases yes and in others no, and I think that's why this theme can be discussed from many different angles, which I think was Dostoyevsky's intent.  Unfortunately for Myshkin, in his time and place, the book said it best, a sanatorium is the only place for a saint.

"The Idiot:" AP? OK!

I'm alive.  I am.  Physically at least.  But after 564 pages of Dostoyevsky, my head and heart are heavy.  That being said, I'm relieved and quite honestly proud for getting through this novel (the fact that I'm about a month behind is not worth dwelling on.)  So, now that I've read The Idiot in its entirety, I can tackle the eternal question: Is it AP worthy?  That is, is this story worth reading, discussing, or even merely mentioning in an AP curriculum?  The short answer is yes, but allow me to elaborate.

The Idiot is an almost agonizingly dense and dry piece of literature, I'm sure most who read it will admit to that.  The story itself is a rather beautiful one.  The telling of a young man's quest for love and companionship in Russia despite the obstacle of being regarded as a simpleton by his peers.  The story is full of heart-breaking betrayal, humorous anecdotes, and deep philosophical and religious discussions.  That being said, it still dragged along at a snail's pace, and no matter how into the story I felt, it still took regularly over 2 hours to read fifty pages.  However, that doesn't mean that The Idiot didn't contain everything necessary for an AP piece of writing.

The Idiot is full of literally dozens of complicated characters, each with their own story, motives, and personalities.  This ensures that the reader never gets bored of anyone in particular.  While it does cause you to ask yourself "who are we talking about again?" several times per reading session, the abundance of characters keeps things interesting and continually adds different insights and perceptions of plot points and other characters themselves.  Any book with so many characters, and so many contributing factors to each one, is of an AP level in my opinion.

Dostoyevsky uses not an abundance of literary devices, but the ones he chooses to employ are used in a very strong and sometimes unique way.  There are foreshadowings and flashbacks throughout the book, but the way that Dostoyevsky uses them is unique and frankly, while off-putting at first, grew to be almost comforting.  I am referring to Dostoyevsky breaking away from the plot and beginning to talk in 1st person, which he did maybe only 10 or 12 times throughout the entire book, but when he did it was to either foreshadow an event coming up or touch on something that happened previously.  As I said, while this was quite odd and detracted from the story at first, I grew to enjoy it, and it gave me a feeling of security, knowing Dostoyevsky was with me on this mammoth journey.  Not to mention when the author himself is the one explaining things, you can count on fully understanding his intentions.  In addition to these devices, Dostoyevsky alludes to historical characters and works of art of literature, in addition to making use of a stream of consciousness technique.  Constant breaks of dashes and parentheses followed the characters' and even the narrator's changing (and even cluttered at times) thought processes.  The literary devices in this book are not necessarily copious, but they are effective, which constitutes AP work.

The theme of The Idiot is a simple one, as it's even basically stated on the back of the book ("A sanatorium is the only place for a saint.")  That being said, even though the theme is known from the start, it's not one that's completely clear or easy to understand initially.  How can such a good person fall to such misfortune?  And how can no one seem surprised?  Throughout the story, the theme becomes clearer and clearer, but it is still open to different interpretations.  Were the events that happened to Prince Myshkin his fault or the fault of the other characters, society, etc.?  Would this story be the same today?  The same in America?  While the theme of the book is simple, it is by no means presented in a simple way, and a complicated theme always screams AP!

While the issue of length and density may make The Idiot a difficult book to fit into a tight AP schedule, that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve it.  Complex characters, numerous literary devices and allusions, and a simple yet layered theme make The Idiot a book worthy of being at least discussed in any AP curriculum.

Sparks of Life Reveal Unimpressive Personalities

I will preface this post by apologizing to my fellow bloggers, my wonderful teacher Mrs. LaClair, and my partner in crime Owen Geary for being so behind schedule.  As it turns out, 667 pages of 19th century Russian literature isn't as breezy as one would have hoped.  I am by no means halfway through the novel, but I am far enough to give an important update on the story, its characters, and my insights and predictions, but as previously stated I must apologize for the lateness and probable disorganization of this post.

My earlier post highlighted how almost every character in the novel so far are close to identical in their values, their routines, and their personalities.  With the exception of a choice few, such as Prince Myshkin and Natasya Fillipovna, the main focus of everyone is money and social power.  However, in this section of reading, some true personalities come to light.  But that doesn't mean we like anyone any more.  

It appears that my intuition didn't fail me when I thought I could spot something special in Natasya.  This section centers around her entirely, as she is throwing a large birthday party for herself, and anyone who is anyone is in attendance.  Totsky, (the man who raised her), General Epanchin, Ganya, we're talking the cream of the crop.  Even Ferdyshchenko, the town drunk/self-proclaimed intellectual is present, uttering nonsense while everyone else sips champagne.  In addition to the rich men we have been introduced to previously being present, there are some strangers, at least to Myshkin and thus to the reader, that long go without names, such as an elderly "teacher" and a young, beautiful, silent woman.  

The party seems to be rather dull, one exception being the painful apprehension and tension in the air, as this is the night that Natasya has promised Ganya she will respond to his proposal of marriage, and although everyone assumes she will accept, there is still massive uncertainty.  That being said, things liven up when Myshkin stumbles into the room, dirty and poorly dressed.  The social giants in attendance are expecting Natasya to cast aside this filthy nuisance of a man, but instead she welcomes Myshkin with more warmth than she has shown anyone else since the party's start.  Myshkin's ultimate goal in attending the part is to tell Natasya to not marry Ganya, as he does not love her, and cares only about money.  However, so as not to make a scene, after Myshkin arrives he stands quietly and listens in on conversations without getting involved.  

Ultimately, Ferdyshchenko decides to try and liven up the party by suggesting that everyone in attendance participate in a petit-jeu, or "little game."  The game he suggests is quite interesting and is sure to make any party a lot more interesting, depending on who is there.  The game suggested by Ferdyshchenko requires every single man in the room (women are given the option to participate but are not required to of course, as it may be too exciting for them to keep up) to tell the story of his worst deed.  While some are disgusted by the idea of this strange and humiliating game, Natasya is all over it, and demands that the group plays it.  It is also worth mentioning that throughout the entire party Natasya is behaving very strangely.  She appears to go through some fairly intense and rapid mood swings, going from light-hearted and energetic to depressed and hostile.  It is suggested several times that she may be ill, but her odd behavior is never fully justified.  

Now, back to the petit-jeu.  Ferdyshchenko begins, and he tells the story of how he once stole three rubles from someone he was visiting.  This doesn't get much of a reaction out of anyone, as money is obviously not an issue to any of them, three rubles (while I don't know the exact amount) is probably mere pocket change.  However, when Ferdyshchenko mentions that he blames the theft on a maid and gets her fired, Natasya goes into a fit of rage against him, and he responds by getting defensive, as if he expected the people at the party to be charmed or amused by his story.

Two more men tell stories, and while these stories covered five or six pages each (with no paragraph breaks because we all know those are a waste of time), they can be summed up fairly easily.  One man tells of how he used to live under a very mean and hostile woman whom he hated, and when she steals a bowl of his, he goes to scold her, not knowing that while he yells numerous swears at her and calls her every name in the book, she is dying in front of him.  The man claims to feel guilty knowing the last interaction she had in her life was being berated by him.  The next story told revolves around a man wanting a certain type of flower for a woman he is infatuated with, and ultimately tricking the man who grows said flowers to give him some by telling the grower that the woman is dying and must have the flowers.  Now, while both of these stories may be true, and they may be a source of regret for these men, it seems clear that these stories are attempts to improve the mens' images.  When you think about it, one man felt bad that he was mean to an old woman, making him seem sensitive and empathetic, and the other man feels bad for doing whatever it took to make his woman happy.  Ferdyshchenko is not pleased with these stories, and he says these men cheated the fun of the game.  

Aside from the game revealing that in addition to being boring and simple, these men have a great interest in themselves, the party gets even more interesting when it comes time for Natasya to announce her marriage decision.  To the astonishment and horror of everyone in the room, Natasya asks Myshkin if she should marry Ganya, saying she will do as he says.  Myshkin tells her the truth, and tells her not to marry Ganya, and instantly Natasya agrees while Ganya stands twitching in the corner.  

Because this post is becoming ungodly long, I will VERY briefly describe the rest of what happens in this section.  A man Myshkin met from the train i the very beginning comes back with a large sum of money wanting to marry Natasya, Natasya is ultimately offended and goes into a long spiel about her life and her disappointment of men and marriage and her life.  Ultimately, Ferdyshchenko suggests she marries Myshkin, and he agrees and proposes, but Natasya says she is not good enough, and she decides to leave with Rogozhin (the man from the train).  Before leaving, she tosses the money into the fireplace and tells Ganya that he can have it if he's willing to pull it out, and he does not oblige, fainting instead.  Ultimately everyone is confused with Natasya because of her incredibly strange behavior.  

This section had a lot of action, and that offered a lot of insight into many characters.  As stated earlier, the men of the party seemed to tell stories of their "worst" deeds being hurting other people, so they can appear sensitive and empathetic.  Ganya's desire for money overpowering the actual love he feels for Natasya (if any) shows his true colors.  After this passage, the author has basically just reinforced the idea of all of these characters being focused on money and social status.  However, this section revealed a lot of complexity about Natasya.  Her behavior and her actions in this section entice me to want to know more about her, because everyone (including the reader) finds her immensely confusing.  Myshkin's motives were clear from the beginning on the novel, as he is simple and selfless in his pleasures and his actions.  As I read further, I'm looking forward to getting more character development and more action, because at this point, even though these characters are becoming more developed, they are not becoming any more likable.  

So Many Characters, So Little Charisma

Nearly a fourth into Dostoyevsky's Idiot, and I've already been exposed to more characters than I want to care about.  As a result, I care about a small handful of them, but I'll get into that later.  Dostoyevsky's novel focuses intensely on characters from the get go, opening with a dialogue between our main protagonist Prince Myshkin and two men on a train.  Myshkin is quickly established as a bright, empathetic, courteous man, whose humble nature attracts the reader immediately.  That being said, his pleasant simplicity is mistaken by most he meets as mental deficiency, hence the title of the novel.

Almost all of the characters met in this book are all very simple and one-dimensional.  Their motives and interests are simpler than their names, as Dostoyevsky sticks to the traditional long, three-name Russian titles, as well as unexplained nicknames that are used only in mixed company.  There are already upwards of 12 seemingly meaningful characters that have been presented, and they are all slightly variated versions of the same people.  There are old Russian men, rulers of the family, normally with some sort of military connection.  Daughters who are waiting for a potential husband to appear with a handsome dowry.  And older women who serve no purpose other than sitting around criticizing their children.  Everyone cares about money and social status above anything else.  Everyone, that is, except for Myshkin.  Myshkin's deep understanding and interest in other people, evident from his stories of travel and teaching and learning from children, immediately set him apart and establish him as someone who does not fit the societal norm of this time period for this area.  this is why he is cast aside and looked upon as an idiot.  This is because, simply put, genuinely good people are not very common.  

Myshkin is arriving in Russia after several years in a sanitarium in Switzerland to fix his "illness" and "fits," which have so far not been explained in detail, but have been referenced enough times to make us think they're important.  Upon arriving in St. Petersburg, Myshkin travels to make the acquaintance of some distant relatives, the Epanchin family.  This is the first interaction Myshkin has after successfully landing in St. Petersburg, and the Epanchins treat him with the same condescending demeanor as the men on the train.  Myshkin tells the Epanchins of his ties to the family and his travels, and they listen to him like he's a child telling them about his imaginary friend.

While the response of the Epanchins is generally the same one that Myshkin receives from everyone he meets, a few characters seem to distinguish him as someone special and not just simple.  Kolya, the younger brother of Ganya (or Gavril Adralionovitch but let's just call him Ganya), speaks to Myshkin as a friend and as someone who understands, even expressing his positive feelings towards the prince at one point, which the prince warmly returns.  Aglaia, the youngest daughter of General Epanchin, a strikingly beautiful young woman and someone who is treasured by her whole family, appears to show an interest in the Prince and his story, asking questions and being engaged when he speaks to her.  Lastly, there is Natasya Fillipovna, an equally beautiful, absurdly rich socialite, who despite everyone's assumptions to cast the Prince aside with an air of disgust, seems very intrigued by him and seems to be impacted by his words and his actions.  Both of these women are hotly contested in terms of marriage, so it is interesting to think that they may have a potential interest in the Prince, which would undoubtedly shock the entire community.

Ultimately, Myshkin is at this point swimming in a sea of identical characters, those that only care about wealth and social conquest.  But himself being so philosophical and selfless, he turns himself into an attraction.  While some characters are able to see him as something more, most are seeing Myshkin as the idiot that Dostoyevsky so cleverly created.