The Idiot
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
So I just finished this tonight and I have to say I was underwhelmed. The philosophical conversations were easily the highlights but I wasn't terribly invested in the plot (which progressed at an incredibly slow pace). Also, I found every character in the book to be incredibly annoying (not saying this as a criticism of the book itself, but it definitely made it difficult for me to care about the narrative).
Only other Dostoevsky I've read is Notes, and I preferred that one by a good margin. What are his other books like? What did you guys think of The Idiot, if you've read it?
>>8139342
Forgot to add, the style of storytelling bugged me as well-
e.g.
>We now find our hero back in x
>We must now take a moment to recount what happened two weeks before
etc.
>>8139342
C&P is the best one to read after Notes. The Idiot is also a critique of the wrong less do-gooder hero, so some of the underwhelmingness you're feeling is on-purpose
You weren't ready to read this book if the way you write about it is anything to go by.
I'm not saying this because you didn't like it, but rather because of how and why you say you didn't like it. You sound actually retarded, and you also apparently read the meme P&V version to boot, so there's pretty strong evidence that you should find another hobby.
>>8139361
Not OP but you should fuck off unless you actually back up your reasoning otherwise you just look like a flamboyantly autistic pseud.
>>8139365
If you read the OP and think he deserves defending then you're just as dumb as he is. As though anyone is going to "reason" with a retard.
Get the fuck off my board.
>>8139359
>The Idiot is also a critique of the wrong less do-gooder hero, so some of the underwhelmingness you're feeling is on-purpose
Gotcha. That definitely makes sense...
>>8139361
>You weren't ready to read this book
>I'm not saying this because you didn't like it, but rather because of how and why you say you didn't like it.
Yeah, yeah...
>reading for the plot
But I didn't think the prose/storytelling was anything exceptional either. Also, what do you mean by "ready" to read it? It's not a challenging read at all. Do you actually want to talk about the book? Maybe explain why you liked it? (I'm assuming you did)
>>8139359
It's Dostoevsky's most passionate novel and the one which delves most deeply into his anxieties about the realities of a Christian existence. It may be underwhelming but there's no part of a sense of being underwhelmed that was "on purpose."
>>8139390
>conflates prose/storytelling
>talks about prose while having read a meme translation
>what do you mean "ready"
>says not challenging yet manages only a sub-meme analysis
>Do you actually want to talk about the book?
Not with you.
>>8139376
>trying this hard
>>8139404
>says not challenging yet manages only a sub-meme analysis
>implying I presented my OP as an "analysis"
Actually, I just set the book down and expressed my surface level thoughts to get a discussion going. I wasn't blown away by it, that's all. Sorry to offend you, pal.
>>8139408
>tfw I'm not even trying and yet even so some moron thinks what I write is so good that I'm over-exerting myself.
>>8139417
>dumb enough to think his surface level thoughts are worth sharing
>calls his shitty thread surface level
>implying that there's anything else
>>8139376
Nah. You fuck right off
>>8139342
I agree. The overriding themes of the novel were shame and regret. It got a little boring and extremely irritating at times that i did not care for any of the characters. Will read again in a couple of years though. Maybe something in me will have changed. I don't think Dosto can write plot very well though so i won't comment on that.
>>8139422
>someone makes a thread to ask if a book is any good
>"Read the book, retard."
>someone makes a thread mid-way through a book
>"Finish the book, retard."
>someone makes a thread about a book they just finished
>"Provide a critical analysis of the book, retard."
Gotta love this board.
>>8139342
The book was about the difficulty and reality of living a fully Christian life (living like Christ) in the modern world. Turns out it hasn't changed in 2000 years.
The Prince is a Christ-like character (honest, kind, forgiving, etc.), and although all the characters know this about him they still mistrust him, suspect him of wrong doing and take advantage of him. This reflects the way the real Christ was treated.
I think the overall message is bleak since we haven't become anymore trusting/forgiving in 2000 years, and likely won't in 2000 more.
>>8139342
main character was a literal autist.
worst of all dostoyevsky books by a country mile.
muh virginal god botherer.
muh temptress
mu permanently weeping women.
trash
>>8140700
I agree it was the worst of Dostoevsky's major books, but it was still good.
Nastasya Filippovna is the most realistic female in literature.
>>8139342
The idiot is the least plot driven of his books, if you want something with more action check out crime and punishment.
Then again maybe you just don't like Dostoevsky.
