The Idiot

David Magarshack's translations of Dostoevsky--as well as other Russian writers--for Penguin have been eclipsed by more recent versions, but especially in the case of Dostoevsky, I find this hard to understand. Richard Peaver and his Russian partner (can't recall the spelling of her name) are hailed as finally bringing Dostoevsky into definitive English versions. Compared with the pioneering Garnett translations, the Peaver versions are superior, but Magarshack's shouldn't be forgotten.I studied Russian mnogo let tomu nazad, but I don't think I can judge the value of a translation linguistically. However, Magarshack's versions of Dostoevsky read as well in English as Peaver's, in fact, I would say that there's a fluency in Magarshack's versions that's missing in Peaver's. After all, Magarshack was born in Russia and educated in England so was fluent in both languages. I can't help feeling that one talented multi-language translator has a better chance of capturing the style and subtance of a difficult writer than two translators who aren't fluent in both languages (I'm assuming Peaver's partner is not fluent in English, else she would publish her own translations.)IDIOT (same spelling in Russian as in English) is my favorite Dostoevsky novel and I think Magarshack's is the one to read first if you want the best possible English version of this masterpiece.

This concerns the harder-to-find Magarshack translation:I believe this to be a terrific, readable translation of a very difficult book. Many books are better the second time around, and this one is no exception. I wasn't thrilled the first time. This book, like the best of Dostoevsky, is about the desperation and transcendence that life contains. It's not about plot. One can look at the characters as different facets of oneself, with all the contradictory and hypocritical and beautiful ideas that we all have inside us, at once. So you may have to read it twice (but admittedly, it's hard to tell people that they need to re-read a 660 page novel!)

I am quite a fan of Dostoyevski and have read his works multiple times in multiple translations over three or four decades. I rather like this translation, in it you will find a beautiful love story, a tragedy, humor and social commentary of detail and clarity long lost in the world of fiction. The world in which this novel takes place is a simple time, not distracted by technology and an overload of irrelevant information. If you therefore still find it inaccessible ask please if the problem may lie in part with our own contemporary and overly distracted minds, and recall that while technology has steamed through our lives at its breakneck pace, consuming the hours and minutes of our lives, human nature was complete and not much changed from what it is now at the time of this novel's composition. It is my personal habit to not look to commentaries and forwards to give a work context, rather, I rely upon my native ability to imagine, to understand the gist, from context, and to form my images, in the same way I would learn a language or some new art, by throwing myself into its midst and drawing my own conclusions by the reactions I observe. By this letting go of the need to juxtapose the new from what I presume to know, I find it more effortless to place myself into the story and experience the events of the narrative along with its characters, and forgo the need to approach the story as some archaeological theorist from an imagined future.

I'm on my third time through. Interesting how many other reviewers on this thread have also read the novel multiple times. Have read only this translation to the end, but after sampling several others, to me Magarshack's rendering can't be beat. Some may say it's dated or too British, I say it flows beautifully.

I agree with all of the other reviewers: read this book. There were three things from this book which stand out for me. The first is that the English transalation of the title is not entirely accurate. Most people, myself included, think of a very stupid person when we think of an idiot. Myshkin is not an idiot in that sense at all. A more accurate sense of the Russian title would be an extremely naive person. Secondly, near the end of the book, at the ball, one of the characters tells Myshkin that Russians have no moderation in their character. "They can't just convert to Catholicism, they have to become Jesuits," they said. I thought immediately of Lenin and the other Bolsheviks who took power only 35 years after this book was written. They illustrated Dostoyevsky's point. Lastly, while there is much action in this novel, I can't remember any other I've read where the main character is not directly involved. Very little happens due to any direct action by him. Most of the novel he is not doing much of anything but talking, while all the other character are scheming, lying, drinking, fornicating, etc. When he does finally take direct action, it turns out to be disastrous for himself and those closest to him. A truly great book and unlike any other.

Started of well. But wentOn a bit. Found myself losing the willTo live. So gave up.

Excellent translation of an excellent novel.

This book is simply the best book ever - why??? its called the idiot, and without giving anything away, its about a man who always tells the truth. Idiot! The book itself arrived in great condition and for the price, fantastic

Clearly a masterpiece but it needs stamina to wade through the foothills of period prose.