r/classicliterature

​

​Hoi (: while some readers agree Dostoevsky wrote The Idiot to portray a completely beautiful, Christ-like soul, comparative religious essays have long pointed out that Prince Myshkin is one of the closest literary approximations of a Zen master ever written.

​In my observation the cross-cultural ties between Russian literature and Eastern philosophy Ive noted that Myshkin perfectly embodies the Zen state of Mushin, which translates to "No-Mind."

This is not a lack of intelligence; it is a state of consciousness entirely free from personal pride, social masks, and calculating self-interest.

Because Myshkin completely lacks the defensive, plotting armor of the human ego, high society views him as a literal idiot.

In reality, his mind acts like a clear mirror, perfectly reflecting the unfiltered truth, pain, and hidden motives of everyone he meets without analyzing or judging them.

​This connection is so profound that prominent Japanese literary and cinematic adaptations of the novel have explicitly framed Myshkin’s radical compassion as the ultimate ideal of the Bodhisattva, a being who delays their own peace to absorb the suffering of others.

Even Myshkin’s epileptic auras, which he describes as moments of absolute harmony and ultimate synthesis where time stands still, read identically to classic descriptions of Satori, the sudden, flash-of-lightning awakening found in Zen practice.

​However, the novel also hits on a tragic Zen warning through Myshkin.

In Eastern philosophy, pure compassion must be balanced with absolute, practical clarity. Because Myshkin acts out of a pure, detached love that refuses to make hard, earthly choices, his presence accidentally shatters the lives of the flawed people around him. He tries to heal a broken world using pure spiritual emptiness, proving how terrifyingly difficult it is to live with a completely egoless heart in a chaotic, ego-driven reality.

​Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Does seeing Myshkin through a Zen lens of No-Mind change how you view his ultimate breakdown at the end of the novel?

Gassho,

I’m excited to read Kafka’s The Trial this summer - you know, because real life isn’t dystopian enough, and I loved reading Metamorphosis way back when I was in high school. Anyway, I was wondering if I could pick the brains of any of you Kafka connoisseurs out there on the subject of which edition/translation you would recommend I order. A good translation can make all the difference, and I imagine that’s even more the case for this kind of novel. Thanks!

I don’t got too many people to discuss literature with. Anyone wanna read stuff together? Id love company and discussion. Also gimme ideas on how we gonna make it.

Join my whatsapp if yall can for now. gc link

We can switch to discord later:)

Well, it’s taken me until my 50s to get round to it, but I’ve finally read Middlemarch. And I can say, without question, that it is one of the best, most rewarding novels I’ve ever read. 

I mean, what George Eliot, Mary Ann Evans, gave us is nothing short of astonishing. 

I’m not sure what I was expecting exactly. I’d embarked on it six months ago, partly in a desperate bid to restore an attention span pinched to almost nothing by years of moronic scrolling, but I’m so glad I did.

What makes it so great? I wouldn’t presume to put a finger on it, but apart from its virtuosic plotting, it’s profoundly wise without ever being ponderous (except perhaps when poor Mr. Casaubon is speaking), and, my goodness, it’s funny! I didn’t realise how funny it would be. And funny without any trace of cruelty.

By pure coincidence, it was ranked the greatest ever English novel in a recent Guardian poll, and I really can’t argue with that. I just have this insatiable urge to evangelise, hence me rambling here to a bunch of internet strangers, a lot of whom have already read it, and will doubtless need no persuasion. 

Now that I’m a confirmed George Eliot groupie, which of her other novels would you recommend I read next? 

Hello everyone, I’m curious does anybody else have the same opinion as me on this very questionable character in Steinbecks book East of Eden. Interested in discussion not argument.

My take that I had written while reading the book;

Her emotional reversals are unrealistic and abrupt, the shooting feels less like the climax of believable human tension and more like Steinbeck abruptly forcing the “evil Kathy” idea into physical action. Kathy’s emotional transitions happen too abruptly and too transparently to feel psychologically believable as human psychology doesnt usually pivot this quickly without a deeper explanation.

While reading about Cathy I found myself constantly looking for this deeper explanation without any luck. I feel that’s because Steinbeck tried writing a ‘truly evil’ character who can’t have a reason for their evil, that is simply the way they were born. Writing a ‘truly evil’ character is difficult, but psychologically convincing evil already exists in real life and literature (which I found constantly bringing up in my mind while reading this book to try and make sense of Cathy) so Cathy’s severe lack of realism must be a stylistic choice. I believe convincing evil, or true evil, requires continuity.

In this continuity we see the gradual shifts in behavior and derive from that whether what we’re seeing is evil or not. Rather than developing gradually, Cathy flips so suddenly between emotional extremes that she begins to feel cartoonish rather than convincingly human. Her character feels very controlled by Steinbeck which strengthens the idea that her actions are artificial. It feels as if Steinbeck kept asking himself as he was writing, “what actions could most quickly reinforce her monstrosity”.

Again please I’m interested in discussions and debates not arguments, just curious to see if anyone felt the same as me!!

Going into it, I was actually quite excited. First because of the stuff I heard from other people and second because the descriptions of it got me hooked.

But when I actually got to read it, I found the build up and the crime itself to be stale. When he did it, in my mind I was like "is that it?" And I don't know if it's because it's a very expected moment or I'm just expecting too much out of it.

I got around to finishing volume 1, and a part I actually felt a very very strong connection to the text is the main character's financial situation, him being described as "crushed by poverty."

Now, I can't even find the motivation to open the book and turn a page. Maybe the very long and detailed introduction in the beginning where I felt like I was spoiled of everything that's going to happen ruined the experience. Or perhaps because I just finished my first classic The Count of Monte Cristo about 2 weeks ago and I need more time to take a break after my first classic.

Anything you wanna lemme know to keep in mind while i read?

Hi everyone,

What are some of the classics that deal with urban loneliness? Feeling alone and lonely in the big city?

I am particularly interested in books that explore the feeling of loneliness; how does it feel and how does the city impact the feeling.

I've read the Bell Jar. Plath have a lot of very profound descriptions of loneliness. I've also read a lot of the russian classics. Dostojevskij, for instance, seems to explore a type of existential loneliness with the Idiot.

Anything else you could recommend?

Here are some of mine:

The Underground Man is Stephen Dedalus at forty years old. Educated with no knowledge or information. Self aware with no self awareness.

If Moby Dick would have been popular in it's time, Ulysses would not be a thing. Melville did all the same stuff with a better side story.

The post WWI books about British Aristocracy falling apart and losing their touch as good as US Lost Generation novels.

People worry about translations way too much; use them as a crutch not to dig in. It would be better if people just picked one, burned the boats and dove in 100%.

More novels should have been serialized. Allow the authors some time to develop more story arcs, cut some of riff raff that did not age well and had better endings. Feel like the format and the structure of sterilization needed planning, depth and foresight that some authors might have benefited from.

What are yours?