
“The Idiot” Savant: On Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Idiot - lermontov
https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2018/5/the-idiot-savant-9753
======
urmish
This novel, along with 'Crime and punishement' deal with completely opposite
personalities. One has a very optimistic view of the world, the other,
Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment, despises it and justifies violent crime
with this mentality. Wonderful works, both of them. Unlike many, I read TBK
first and decided to read Dostoevsky's other works and fell in love. Notes
from the underground will always hold a special spot in my heart because of
how much I can relate to the protagonist unfortunately.

Can anyone recommend other similar works of literature? I haven't read many
books like this but I found Siddhartha, Narcissus and Goldmund and
Steppenwolfe by Herman Hesse to be on the same lines (deal with
existentialism).

~~~
throwaway84742
As a Russian, I don’t understand how Americans can “get into” Dostoevsky or
Tolstoy. The cultural background required to understand them is simply not
there, so you’re getting maybe 50% of what’s there, and that’s an optimistic
estimate.

Likewise, I’m not sure I fully understand Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc. I enjoy
their work, to be sure, but I’m afraid not to the extent Americans enjoy it.
Thus far I have not found an American novelist who would be anywhere near
Dostoevsky or Tolstoy. My favorite US novel is “Grapes of Wrath”. Absolutely
beatiful work when read in the language it was written in.

My favorite Russian novel is “War and Peace”. Russian school children are
forced to read it when they’re like 15, and they don’t get it, of course.
After re-reading it at 40 I was blown away. Such immense depth, such masterful
pacing and character development.

I have recently re-read Crime and Punishment, another one of those books
Russian school children are forced to read with no hope of understanding. I
was likewise impressed with depth and sheer brutality of it. I wouldn’t say
Raskolnikov hated the world. That’s not quite right, too black and white.
Dostoevsky operates in the gray area. Raskolnikov was, at his core, a kind
young man (see eg his empathy for Sonya), but an extreme nihilist, and he was
stuck between a rock and a hard place, from which his nihilism offered him no
escape. Struggling to reconcile his ideology with his humanity, he commits a
stupid crime, for which his humanity makes him suffer immensely. If he really
did despise everything, he would sleep well.

~~~
clipperton
What sort of cultural points might be missed on a non-Russian person reading
Dostoevsky? I just finished Crime and Punishment a couple months back and am
curious, if you have the time.

~~~
pandaman
GEB (Hofstadter's book) has a chapter about exactly this. Using Crime and
Punishment as an example it is shown how different translations struggle with
the lack of context.

~~~
westoncb
Haha—this is the first thing I've heard about GEB in years that makes me again
somewhat interested in reading it. There was a point when I was a teenager
where it seemed like probably the most interesting book on the planet, and I'd
read a decent bit of it then; but years later—after studying a bunch of math,
CS, and philosophy stuff—when I'd consider reading it there just didn't appear
to be enough _new_ meaty stuff of interest (though it still looks like an
enjoyable packaging of many already familiar things). I also disagree
fundamentally with the possibility of a material 'strange loop' resulting in
another ontological category, so I feel like I'd be missing drive to reach the
conclusion.

I'd be curious to hear any opinions on GEB by those with decently strong math,
cs, and/or philosophy backgrounds—might it still be worth reading? (I mean
it's damn long...)

~~~
pandaman
If you are interested in the context analysis in Crime and Punishment then you
can read just those few pages. He goes over just the first couple sentences of
the book if I recall correctly. It's not an explanation of the context for the
entire book by any means but an example of how much context could be needed to
read a simple sentence.

------
ppeetteerr
The novel is beautiful, and it's beauty is not in a traditional story arch,
it's in the flawed characters. The mystery of whether Myshkin is an idiot
remains through and with every scene that thought is put into question.
Dostoevsky was not know for his structure, but for his characters and their
meditations on life and religion.

------
ikeyany
Doesn't the word 'savant' imply wisdom? Prince Myshkin is as naive as they
come. I would think someone in his shoes wouldn't mind being walked all over
like he is in the book.

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest
they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

~~~
tgragnato
The oxymoron "idiot savant" was used for the first time by John Down during
his studies. The etymology is in the scientific literature.

Today we would use a less controversial term like "savant syndrome"... It
seems appropriate given the title of the book (and the plot).

I always took it as an eulogy to the plasticity of the human intellect: we
always have something to learn from anybody.

~~~
sp332
I think the title is playing on the phrase "idiot savant" to indicate
Dostoevsky himself, as the savant who wrote "The Idiot".

~~~
drunkenmonkey
I think the main character is a Savant, who others view as an idiot. The title
and its characterization are ironic. He is the smartest character in the book,
but viewed as an idiot, due to a consistently ignorant society.

Not unlike, for example, Sufi poets who claim to be gods and then are
humiliated and executed for heresy. His label of “idiot” is his execution. A
crowd crying to crucify Christ.

------
narrator
The thing that most impressed me about the Idiot was the extreme complexity of
the interpersonal relationships of the characters. It made me think that
Dostoevsky was vastly overstating the intelligence of the average Russian, or
maybe they were all that smart back in the day. Some of the monologues in
which the main characters explain the various interpersonal relationships and
intrigues are as hard to follow as any I've ever read. The only thing that
comes close is some of Pynchon's stuff.

~~~
westoncb
I'm tempted to think that's an artifact of a tendency in writers to give their
characters thought processes resembling their own.

I don't think it's anything especially related to writing; I think everyone
does it in their normal life: you want to think about how so and so is going
to react to whatever, but the best we can really do is consider them as
basically like ourselves +/\- some known differences (which for many things is
sufficient, but in my experience can also lead to absurdities due to how
vastly differently some folks think).

------
robotkdick
TLDR;

Dostoevsky was considered to be a genius by many, but gave nearly every dime
he ever made away, a condition that led to his unpayable debts, which he
exacerbated by gambling, which led to exile.

Early in life, moments away from being executed, Tsar Nicholas spared him and
the other prisoners from death but sent him to a Siberian prison for four
years.

He suffered from epilepsy and had a fit while his wife went into labor. Unable
to call for a midwife for "hours" their child died, and Dostoevsky blamed
himself.

The Idiot breaks a lot of literary conventions, but it works, just as
Dostoevsky lived a broken life, and yet is considered by many a genius.

The article is very good. I recommend reading it in full.

~~~
nasredin
WRT gambling he was a fiend for the roulette wheel IIRC.

------
alistoriv
The Idiot is one of my favorite books of all time. Reading it in high school
was definitely a formative experience. It was my first introduction to many
existential concepts; particularly the parts about the painting by Hans
Holbein the Younger.

------
graeme
Has anyone ever examined whether serialization had an impact on the quality of
literature?

~~~
emodendroket
How would you tell?

------
dboreham
Also: written in Florence (mostly).

