Book Review: The Idiot

...by Fyodor Dostoevsky

I've finally finished this, the eighth of Dostoevsky's novels, after an on again, off again relationship which spanned nearly the length of a school year.

I'm busy, okay?

Nevertheless, I'd recently taken it upon myself that, in the space of this winter break from school, I would finally finish the novel. Well, I'm proud to report, as I already have in my opening sentence, that I have finished--and that I have this to say about the book.

The plot goes something like this: our protagonist, Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin arrives by train in Petersburg after spending the entirety of his childhood in a Swiss institute, where he has been cared for and treated for his epilepsy. The definining attribute of the character is his utter innocence, developed from his long absence from "normal" society. He's often described, and accused of, acting very childlike, which, when combined with his epilepsy, earns him the moniker of idiot. The story soon develops as the presence of the Prince is felt throughout the new society in which he finds himself. The most notable storyline is the developing rivalry between Aglaya Epanchin and Natasya Fillipovna, two women vying, strangely, at times, for the Prince's heart. And I'll tell you right now, the ending, is amazing.

The most unique thing I've enjoyed about Dostoevsky's writing is simply the way in which it is presented. His narrator is not a typical omniscient third-person, but rather, the story is told from the point of view of a character, best described as anonymous observer and historian. What I mean to say, is that the book is written mainly in second-person, in that the narrator directly addresses the reader as if telling the story aloud. This perspective gives Dostoevsky a masterful amount of control over the flow of information. At times, the narrator will discuss the entirety of a family's history, or the innermost workings of a character's thoughts; but when needed, the narrator will feign ignorance, shut the door to his own omniscience and build tension between the story and the reader. He also uses this technique in books like The Brothers Karamozov, Crime and Punishment, and Demons, to the same effect.

The second point that I'd like to make is that this book is very much grounded in reality. It doesn't have a mushy, Jane Austenesque, hollywood ending. I like it that way. Inevitably, in every book I read, I'm subconsciously trying to figure out the ending, fitting the plot to the three-act outline, finding the important metaphors and reading into them the deeper meanings being shoved at me by the author. I couldn't do that here. Try as I might, this book refused to go where I thought it would, but for the simple reason that the characters actually make decisions like human beings. The plot moves, not by the narrator, but by the events themselves. Everything about the plot feels very much like the historian narrator is decribing, not telling, the story as it happened. It was very refreshing.

And so ends my long affair with The Idiot. I've had fun, I've spent too long reading it, and I think now it's time for me to read some lighter fare. Time for a literary break.

Book Review - Is God a Delusion?

...By Dr. Eric Reitan, religious philosophizer extraordinaire.

I really wanted to wholeheartedly disagree with this book, I really did. I turned the first few pages, with my thinking cap and goggles of pretension firmly fastened, ready to scoff my way through the roughly 225-page text (this being the way I read most religious "non-fiction" these days), and while I can't lie by saying that this book was completely unscoffworthy, I will say that I had a very hard time disagreeing with the spirit of most of Reitan's philosophy. You see, he comes from a very different intellectual place than most of the religious folks you likely encounter in your daily lives, in that he strives for a religious worldview which is also completely philosophically rational.

*Gasp!* I know.

I should mention a few things before I continue further. This book, entitled Is God a Delusion? is a direct answer to the wave of "New Atheist" literature, or as he puts it in the book's subtitle, to "Religion's Cultured Despisers." (the last phrase is used as a callback to the theologian Friedrich Schliermacher, whom you'll be hearing a lot about when you read the book). These New Atheists include the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and, I suppose, myself. These are the authors who not only had the audacity not to believe in God, but also the gall to enter into the religious/philosophical realm to attempt to prove their atheistic worldviews.

*Gasp!* It's true!

Reitan therefore sets out not only to debunk the claims of the New Atheists, but also to champion a religious worldview which is simultaneously rational and pragmatic. He does so in a practiced and disciplined philosophical style which, as he points out with devastating effect, the atheistic literature is sorely lacking. It is precisely this thorough approach which makes this book intellectually appealing for the lay-religious reader and theologian alike.

*Gasp!* I'm sounding way too much like an actual book review here, I'm going to have to tone it down a bit.

I mentioned earlier that I had a hard time disagreeing with Reitan's philosophy. This is not to say that his arguments immediately convinced me (I'm still an atheist, after all), but rather to point out how well this book is structured and thought-out. Several times during my reading, I would begin to find what I thought were key weaknesses in his arguments--chinks in his intellectual armor which I could soon exploit for a easy victory over his theology. And precisely at the point at which I was sure I could win the debate, he would inevitably roll out his counterpoint and completely destroy my fledgling argument with his philosophical prowess. It's either a testament to my lacking as a philosopher (something which I've never denied) or Reitan's skill as a wordsmith. I think it's probably the latter.

Regardless, I would strongly suggest (nay, I demand) that EVERYONE read this book, whether you're an atheist, agnostic, christian, or pastafarian. Too often do atheists read Dawkins or Hitchens only to have their existing beliefs parroted back at them (perhaps with a more sophisticated British tone), and similarly Christian readers delight at reading the latest Strobel, only to be shown the same arguments that they've been taught their entire life. This is not so when reading Reitan's work. Atheists and Christians alike will have plenty of new intellectual fodder to contemplate while enjoying this read.

In short, this is the type of theology I wish every religious person would ascribe to (if they must, of course). No longer would we have the superstitious, vengeful God of the old testament looming over our heads, or the too-often-used interventionalist God who helps you find convenient parking spots. Rather, we would be treated to the God of Reitan and Schliermacher, the benevolent fulfiller of the "ethico-religious hope."

What's this ethico-religous hope business? You'll have to buy a copy to find out.

And hey, it's just in time for the holidays!