Welcome Aboard!

Join Kenny Andrew and Owen Geary on a journey discovering what it means to be mentally dense.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

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.



6 comments:

  1. Dear Ken,
    I was enticed by the sincerity and insights that your blog post gave regarding Dostoyevsky's novel, "Idiot". I think it will be interesting to see how Myshkin develops as the novel goes on, but one thing you touched on in particular that interests me is the return of Myshkin from the sanitarium. In "Beloved", Paul D might have similar character traits to those of Myshkin, although he is not the main character of the novel. Paul seems to be held in a higher regard by most others around him, and also may seem to have some sort of mental thing going on with his whole "oh I want to have sex with women all the time" thing (not to make this post inappropriate). I'm still relatively in the dark about Paul D and his intentions, and I'm curious to see how both of our characters develop as the novels go on.
    Thanks for your time,
    Dom

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow - just reading about these characters has me confused! It seems like there are a lot of characters but not much development happening; just a lot of people who think Prince is an idiot. A potential milestone in the development of the story would be if one of the women married Prince. I'll be checking in on the blog in the future to see how the story progresses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Salutations fellow blogger! I happened to stumble across your blog page whilst browsing the interwebs and I decided to give it a read!

    I find it interesting how you used simple to describe both the characterization of the other socialites and nobles along with the nature of Prince Myshkin. Perhaps what the author, and perhaps you as well, is getting at is that those who conform to societal norms are generally seen as intelligent or addequate despite being inconsequential. However, if one were not to conform to societal norms they would be seen as an idiot like Myshkin despite being multi-layered. Or, to rephrase what I'm trying to get at, that the basis of this novel appears to be society and societal norms. And from this basis it appears that the author's message seems to, at this point, be that societal norms are not always right. That perhaps the key to being your own person is to think for yourself and uphold values that are important to you. Again, you describe the rest of the nobility or socialites or whatever as simplistic and one-dimensional. If that is the case then Dostoyvesky's intention may very well be to show that an oppressive society/societal structure can hurt an individual's growth and that different is not always bad. If that is the case then you might find you're already very familiar with this theme looking back at books like Brave New World and The Handmaid's Tale.

    Also, one quick question (feel free to respond!) what exactly is Myshkin's position in this social hierarchy? You say he's a prince but is he a Russian prince (I would assume so but just to clarify) and also how powerful is he? I would imagine if he was the heir to the throne people would be licking his boots even if he was a simpering moron, which he doesn't appear to be. If he's relatively low in the hierarchy of the royal family then perhaps that might be what allowed him to develop this perspective on life? I just say this because it would seem likely that if he were relatively unimportant he would probably be overlooked by his parents and the rest of society and thus given a sort of free range. Just food for thought, let me know your opinion in your reply (if you choose to reply LOL!).

    -C Thunder

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow my book sounds a lot like yours. Do you actually think Prince Myshkin is as benevolent as he seems? It obviously hints to him having bitter thoughts regarding characters that make fun of him, but he doesn't state his opinion out loud. Do you think he will progressively change into a more vocal person regarding his own personal opinion? Or is he really just as kind as he appears? Also why do you think other characters are so "simple" as you put it? I wonder if this Dostoyevsky is commenting of the effect of social classes on intelligence or social morale. Prince Myshkin, the least rich or noble of any of them, seems to have the most wit about him. Funny, right? Happy Reading, Love Owen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kenny, a well-written post about the characters and their relationships to the main ideas of the novel at this point.

    Do you think there's some character trait the two women have in common that allow them to see Myshkin more accurately than others do?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kenny, I think that your like and dislike of the characters is greatly explained and I appreciate how a lot of your descriptions play along with the idea of the novels title. Your humor is very well used in this post and makes your post that much more fun to read.

    ReplyDelete