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.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)