I haven't encountered anything like this before (strangely enough, in my opinion, the closest to this incredible blend are not other classics like Tolstoy, but the Strugatsky brothers, but they are somehow coarser)...

I disagree, the Strugatsky brothers are not coarser, but rather more direct. Dostoevsky gently guides you and suggests you stop and think - the Strugatsky brothers hit you where it hurts, so you gasp for air and stare in shock. But they are geniuses, of course.

The envious, albeit talented, Nabokov, in his time, called Fyodor Mikhailovich the author of cheap detective stories (I don't remember the exact quote) - I've never heard anything more absurd in my life.

Only Nabokov would dare to judge! He, by the way, has remarkably poor content despite his amazing style - he knows how to speak and loves to, he speaks luxuriously, figuratively, expressively - but he doesn't really have anything to say.

I enjoy reading him, but he doesn't offer any food for thought. And, by the way, this isn't just my opinion; many critics and writers feel the same way.

Added 1 minute ago

Oh, this scandalous Nabokov... he gained publicity at the expense of Dostoevsky!:D And, in fact, someone here already mentioned where this kind of criticism comes from.

If Nabokov had experienced even a tenth of the horrors that Dostoevsky endured, perhaps his novels would be filled with substance.

Added 2 minutes ago

"The Idiot," as I see it, is filmed much closer to the text.

So "close to the text" that it's nauseating. I realized with this series that adaptations should be compositions based on the book, not just retellings. Essentially, it's a smooth, polished summary - but why do I need it if I've already read the book twenty times?

Where is the director's own interpretation of the idea? Did he have his own thoughts about the book? Where are they?