![]() Or is novel an elaborate test-just like that Holbein painting that tests one's faith? (Check out the " Symbols" section for some chitchat about it. Is the idea that you just can't have a perfect person function in the real world? Is the whole novel a drawn-out downer about how a dude who was able to reach out and touch some people in a simple, rural setting-that Swiss village where Myshkin really did make a bunch of kids see the light-could never possibly be able to change the minds and attitudes of the hardened aristocrats of 19th century high society? But why didn't he? It's hard to know, and scholars disagree on this. It really doesn't seem like Myshkin saved anyone. Um, spoiler alert: Nastasya is murdered by Rogozhin, who is sent to prison Myshkin is driven completely catatonic by the experience and shipped off to Switzerland and Aglaya marries some con artist and is separated from her family forever. You can compare to Jesus anyone who has been touched by one of the magical truths, who no longer separates thinking from living and thereby isolates himself in the midst of his surroundings and becomes the opponent of all. So what exactly are we supposed to make of the ending? Hermann Hesse 1919 DOSTOEVSKY'S 'Idiot', Prince Leo Myshkin, is often compared to Jesus. ![]() ![]() Dostoevsky himself wrote his niece a long letter laying out the whole make-an-ideal-human program (check out " In a Nutshell"). And this isn't some analysis tacked on after the fact, either. ![]() We've spent a whole bunch of time discussing the idea that Myshkin is basically supposed to be Jesus, minus the supernatural and divine parts-you know, a walking, talking, perfect human being. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |