On Sunday, July 12, the Ann Arbor Classics Book Group met to discuss Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot”. Although we all come from various backgrounds, both professionally and personally, there was one point we all seemed to agree on: We did not like this book!

Some of us were amazed that we could like “Crime and Punishment” so much but be tortured by another of Dostoevsky's novels. What gives?

Here are some of my thoughts on the merits and demerits of “The Idiot”.

There is no question about it, “The Idiot” is not a page turner. Set in late 19th century tsarist Russia, the book chronicles the exploits of one Prince Lyov Nikolayevitch Myshkin, an epileptic returning to his native Russia after spending much of his life receiving care abroad in Switzerland. He is labeled an “idiot” by all those who encounter him, due to his epileptic fits and innocent nature. Dostoevsky proceeds to show that this “idiot” is the sanest man in all of Russia. Yes, he is forgiving to a fault, naïve, and has a tendency to love with his whole heart, but he is also not caught in the vicious routine of creating drama for the sake of drama. Myshkin is intended to be a Christ-like character. It is interesting that the author chose an epileptic to represent Christ. It speaks to a belief that I have long held, that mental illness, or for these purposes, idiocy, is not a medical ailment but rather an ill of society. Who defines what is normal, what is acceptable? Yes, Myshkin was ill, but he was also kind and compassionate. In the end a depraved society caught up in its own decadence destroyed him, evidence that society will chew you up and spit you out once you no longer amuse it.

Photo Caption: A friend of mine joked that the cover of the Oxford World Classics's edition was her trying to read the book :-P