Talk:The Idiot/Archive 1

Baseline

I just copied the text from the "The Idiot" page, instead of moving it, when disambiguating. I now found out that this is the wrong thing to do, sorry. For page history, you must therefore check out the page history on the original page. Mortene 11:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to expand the themes section when I have more time and after I've went back and read over the book more thoroughly. Stilgar135 00:36, 28 May 2005

• I might be able to add to this article, though it's been awhile since I've read it. A lot more could be written about it, certainly. I'll see what I can do. J. Karamazov (Talk) April 23, 2006

Translations

I see no mention is made of the various translations of this book to English . I know of at least seven. Do you think this article should have an "English Translations" section? --Bruce1ee (Talk) 08:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a section "Translations to English" and included the translations I know of, although I'm not sure if all the dates are correct - could someone please check! --Bruce1ee (Talk) 14:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I recently dug my copy out of storage. It makes the following claims:

Copyright © '1969' by Henry and Olga Carlisle

Introduction Copyright © '1969' by New American Library

Bibliography Copyright © '1980' by New American Library

An ISBN lookup of (0-451-52094-7) reveals the correct book, but the year '1986' - sigh, even more confusion.Fehlschlag 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have two objections here.

First---" The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation (2000) states that the Alan Myers version is the best currently available". This isn't encyclopedic information, it's merely the opinion of the publisher. It is not supprising that Oxford would suggest the Alan Myers translation. Its' the translation that they commissioned for the Oxford World Classics series. Clearly a conflict of interest here.

Second---"Since the 1990s new English translations have appeared that have made the novel more accessible to English readers". Whether or not the new translations have made the novel "more accessible" is not something one can verify. More readable...according to who? To me, this seems close to being a "Weasel Word"

My only suggestion would be to simply list all of the translations. If doing so is legal, then I would also suggest providing a brief sample (a sentence or two) from the most popular translations; here being, Garnett, Pevear/Volokhonsky, Myers, Magarshack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.109.220 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is useful to note whose translations are thought of as good or defunct etc. Perhaps dropping the name of the publisher and keeping only the translaters names, listing those recieved well by critics rather than bald statements such as the "best" I do think it is important to still note which translations are seen as good as a decent translation in important to a reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.140.255 (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with The Idiot (TV series)

Support. The Idiot (TV series) is a 1 line stub and can easily be merged into this article. In fact the text of the stub is already contained here. --Bruce1ee 04:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Analysis

I think the weakest point in this article is the analysis section, which seems to me to be -- if you'll excuse my unintended harshness -- superficial and, at points, completely misguided. For example, it is more than an oversimplification to simply state that Rogozhin "loves Nastasya with a deep passion." I also think its misleading to identify Rogozhin with the Devil; my reading of the text is that while he certainly represents an evil force, he is not himself an evil person: Dostoevsky seems to be arguing that he has been corrupted. This leads me to think that this section is really just a string of one reader's own personal thoughts on the novel, in which case it might be better to simply remove the whole thing immediately and start again from scratch.

When I have enough time I'll try to put something together that draws on interpretations by Dostoevsky scholars themselves (and with, of course, proper citations). Until then, I hope some other people can contribute something more coherent to this section. --Todeswalzer 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This plot summary in the article is copied verbatim from spark notes, unless sparknotes copied wikipedia verbatim(unlikely). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.255.185 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of Spark notes. If you have a copy, quote ref here and delete summary. As you are suggesting, we do not use copyright material here. It is a violation of policy. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreements, disagreements and criticism of this article

Yes, the analysis section is weak, but then again, analysis and interpretation are NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. Neither are plot summaries for that matter.

Reams of interpretation, supposition and analysis are not within the mandate or the purpose of an encyclopedia. It all comes off sounding rather like one of Ippolit's speeches. It's more than anyone needs to hear, wants to hear, or particularly agrees with.

However, as a person who has studied this novel, reading it half a dozen times and thrice in the past two years, I will throw in MY TWO CENTS here, where discussions and opinions SHOULD be.

First, I rather totally disagree with this unsubstantiated assertion:

"There is a parallel between Rogozhin and the Russian upper-class society."

Fyodor has taken pains to show that Rogozhin, a merchant's son, from a wealthy family but an unacceptable profession, an unprincipled and greedy moneylender, can not even speak proper Russian. He does not know how to conduct himself in front of "proper" people, he associates with all manner of low life. No, in no way is Rogozhin written to represent upper class society.

"The materialistic society which praises the values Myshkin represents and professes itself to be "good", cannot accommodate Prince Myshkin."

Also completely missing the point. The point is rather, the contrast between Ippolit and Myshkin. Myshkin is considered an "Idiot" who doesn't get it, yet he is loved by the Yepanchins, and their upper class friends, in spite of being an idiot, and the point is that even an idiot is accepted by honourable society if he is an honourable man.

Ippolit on the other hand, is shrewd, but is hated by everyone, including YOU the reader.

This was a most effective result of Fyodor's design. By giving us page after page of Ippolit's rant, he has made him as distasteful to the reader as he is to the company which he bores to death on Myshkin's birthday. And we are shown that a shrewd but not honourable man is not liked by honourable society. And honour is largely a question of manners, not ethics, in the society of the time. Thus unethical Ferdeschenko's presence is barely tolerable to "upper class" people like Yepanchin and Totsky, but Rogohzin and his shouting band are intolerable.

Finally I disagree with the assertion that Totsky is the most repugnant of characters in the novel. He is not. The characters do not respond negatively to him, he is given no dialogue to make him disagreeable, and no narrative descriptions paint anything but a flattering picture of him. Again, for the most disagreeable character, we have to include in the running Ganya, who intrigues, belittles and even strikes people, and Ippolit and his company of "radical thinkers", which, drawn from past associates of Dostoyevsky, made themselves onerous by rejecting manners. We also have Ferdeschenko, who is a cowardly sarcastic and thief, and Lebedev, who is a hypocrite and bore. Yet, even these are redeemed by Dostoyevsky's benevolent insight into humanity.

So I implore you all to read this novel more than once before you publish "commentaries" and point out again that commentary on novels is not in the scope of an Encyclopedia and should be confined to discussion pages.

--APDEF (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rogozhin: his surname and background

Cf the Analysis section. First and foremost the assertion that 'Rogozhin' alludes to 'rog' ('Horn' in Russian) is absolutely wrong: he may be horny type indeed however his surname is clearly derived from 'rogozha' (ru:Рогожа, meaning kind of thick and crude cloth in Russian). Other point that can be relevant to his background is that in conversation Myshkin guesses that he can be of Old Believers origin, and surprized Rogozhin answers that the prince is almost correct: indeed, his father held Old Believers in high esteem saying that Following their way will be "more correct". Finally it can be discussed whether the whole analysis of Rogozhin is in need of improvement but IMHO the suggested revamp better should be done on scope of the entire article. DBWikis 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing you might like to include would be a brief analysis of the symbolism in the book - and also a discussion of the Hans Holbein (the Younger) painting (I think it's "Christ in the Tomb") with a link to the pic if possible. -A

Fair use rationale for Image:Idiot.JPG

Image:Idiot.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

taken care of. SECProto 15:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

there isnt enough of details added. there is nothing said about either Ippolit or other people such as the Yepachins and others, not even mentioned. They, arguably, play a very imporatant role in the story. More details should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.130.26 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive title

I think this book reinforces negative stereotypes about people with epilepsy and this novel reflects that. I think instead of "The Idiot" we should be talking about Developmental Delay and Special Abilities. It is so hard to overcome all the prejudice with books like this existing in this backward state. 203.97.98.36 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the book portrays the 'idiot' as being morally superior to those around him. It's hardly offensive. Zazaban (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It also states that his epilepsy appeared to be the cause of intensely heightened powers of perception, what could be seen as a temporary existence at a higher intellectual and spiritual level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DH987 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Idiot which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No introduction to who Rogozhin is?

The text introduces Myshkin by describing his background, but it does no such thing for Rogozhin. Who is he? How did they meet? The text simply states, "This is highlighted by his conflicts and relationship with Rogozhin." and introduces him as if we knew who he was or how the two had met or what their relationship was already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.177.237 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

About The Author

I think there should be a little section about Dostoevsky himself and how he relates to characters in the novel, in the sense of beliefs or traits that is (Dostoevsky is an epileptic like Prince Myshkin). Also, if anyone has any information about influences on the writing of The Idiot, that would be an excellent addition as well. - MZ

The prince's story about a man's moments up to his execution is a significant part of the story. It's a major cause of his initial impression upon the Epanchin women; if you remember, his first visit was short, and the story is one of that he tells before leaving with Gania. He also talks about it with the doorman when he first arrives.

Dostoyevsky himself was on the receiving end of a death sentence that resulted in a mock execution before his exile to Siberia. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot tag

If a novel's plot is inherently difficult to navigate (i.e. it is long, complex, polyphonic, intentionally obscure, ambiguous etc.), it is inevitable that a proper summary will reflect this. So putting a tag on saying the plot summary may be too long to read and navigate comfortably is just stating the obvious. It is not possible to understand or navigate the plot of a novel like The Idiot "comfortably". The previous summary, though perhaps "comfortable to navigate", was superficial and misleading, left out significant developments and events, and in general gave the impression that the novel was little more than a trivial soap opera.

Are there any suggestions on how to summarize the plot more succinctly without compromising the depth and complexity of the original? If not, I will remove the tag per wp:Iar. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No response, so removing the tag. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)