Demons

Die Bloßstellung der damaligen russischen Gesellschaft in bewährter Manier Dostojewskies! Sehr empfehlenswert!

Dostoyevsky's works have always been highly regarded for their profound portrayal of the Russian society of that time. His unique writing style and keen observation allow readers to have a vivid understanding of the various aspects of society, including the lives, emotions, and struggles of the people. Through his works, we can see the dark side of society, such as poverty, inequality, and moral decay. At the same time, we can also feel the hope and strength of human nature. This kind of portrayal is not only a reflection of the reality of that time but also has important significance for our understanding of human nature and society today. Therefore, I highly recommend Dostoyevsky's works to all readers who are interested in literature and society.

Dostoevsky impressed me deeply with this book. His profound insights and vivid descriptions truly amazed me. It was as if he had opened a door to a whole new world, allowing me to experience the emotions and struggles of the characters in a very real way. The story was engaging from beginning to end, and I found myself completely immersed in it. I was constantly on the edge of my seat, eager to know what would happen next. There is no other book that has had such an impact on me. It has made me think about life, love, and the human condition in ways that I never thought possible. I will always remember this book and the lessons it has taught me.

**The Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky: A Complex and Intriguing Novel**

The Devils is a remarkable work by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It was first published in 1871 - 1872 in The Russian Messenger. Considered one of his four masterpieces after his return from Siberian exile, along with Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov, it is a multi-faceted novel that combines social and political satire, psychological drama, and large-scale tragedy.

The story begins with Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, who has had an almost illustrious but prematurely curtailed academic career. He is residing with the wealthy landowner Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina at her estate, Skvoreshniki, in a provincial Russian town. He was originally employed as a tutor to Stavrogina's son Nikolai Vsevolodovich and has been there for nearly twenty years in an intimate but platonic relationship with his noble patroness. Stepan Trofimovich also has a son from a previous marriage who has grown up elsewhere without his father's involvement.

Varvara Petrovna, who has just returned from Switzerland where she visited Nikolai Vsevolodovich, berates Stepan Trofimovich for his financial irresponsibility. Her main concern, however, is an "intrigue" she encountered in Switzerland regarding her son and his relations with Liza Tushina, the beautiful daughter of her friend Praskovya. Praskovya and Liza arrive in the town without Nikolai Vsevolodovich, who has gone to Petersburg. According to Praskovya, Varvara Petrovna's young protégé Darya Pavlovna (Dasha) has also become involved with Nikolai Vsevolodovich, but the details are unclear.

Varvara Petrovna suddenly decides to form an engagement between Stepan Trofimovich and Dasha. Although dismayed, Stepan Trofimovich agrees to her proposal as it resolves a delicate financial issue for him. However, influenced by gossip, he begins to suspect that he is being married off to cover up "another man's sins" and writes "noble" letters to his fiancée and Nikolai Vsevolodovich. Matters become even more complicated with the arrival of a mysterious "crippled woman", Marya Lebyadkina, to whom Nikolai Vsevolodovich is rumoured to be connected, although no one knows exactly how.

The narrator of the story is Anton Lavrentievich, a friend of Stepan Trofimovich. He is a government official who tries to recount the recent extraordinary events in their region. However, the narrator is not a major figure in the story and sometimes seems to have only partial knowledge of the events and the inner workings of the characters. The novel also features a diverse cast of characters, including Piotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky, Ivan Pavlovich Shatov, Alexei Nilych Kirillov, Lizaveta Nikolaevna Tushina (Liza), Darya Pavlovna, Maria Timofeyevna Lebyadkina, and Stepan Lebyadkin. Each character has their own unique personality and plays an important role in the complex web of relationships and events that unfold in the novel.

Overall, The Devils is a thought-provoking and engaging novel that explores themes such as politics, religion, morality, and human nature. Dostoyevsky's masterful storytelling and deep understanding of the human psyche make this a classic work of literature that continues to be relevant and captivating today.

One of the good results of this crime (the murder of Ivanov) is the writing of the novel "Demons" by Dostoyevsky.

Mario Vargas Llosa

1. The novel "Demons" by Dostoyevsky is inspired by a historical event in the late 1860s in Russia. During this event, a student named Ivanov is brutally murdered by his own political group, and Dostoyevsky cannot remain indifferent. This incident becomes the main core of the writing of this novel. Through the writing of this story, he wants to expose the conscience of the revolutionary groups in Russia at that time and have a criticism of their methods, directions, and ideological goals.

2. The form of the novel is in the form of conversations among the characters. During these conversations, there are many dialogues and disputes, and sometimes it is not without the element of satire. We get to know the characters of the story and the story also progresses. In this story, there is not much description of the location and clothes of the characters. Instead, Dostoyevsky focuses on the inner characters and describes their states and inner thoughts. Reading the book was like climbing a steep path for me. It was difficult, sometimes painful, but with preparations such as patience, perseverance, and giving heart to the story, and of course, the quiet space that Dostoyevsky created in the world of this story, this path was completed until the story reached its end and had a controversial ending.

3. In my opinion, the discussion of the murder of Ivanov, who we know as Shatov in the story, and the way of his murder is not the main point. Rather, the reason for the occurrence of this incident, with an emphasis on and focus on the political groups active at that time, especially the small group of people who committed the murder, is the main problem. At a more general level, the main problem of Dostoyevsky in this novel is also the problem raised in crime and punishment. The question is, are we allowed to commit a crime to achieve a noble goal? Dostoyevsky, through the creation of memorable and unforgettable characters such as Stavrogin, Shatov, Kirillov, and Pyotr Stepanovich, who was the devil of reason and justice! He talks about the political beliefs of a group. Although they are right in thinking about the welfare of the country, because of their destructive thoughts and harmful ideology, not only do they not reach the desired goal, but they also drown themselves and others in these thoughts and their ideological world. Pyotr Stepanovich, who was a nihilist, was the designer and instigator of many events in the story. With his stupidity and blind fanaticism and the accompaniment of others, he led to disastrous and tragic results.

4. The world created by Dostoyevsky in the book was such that I was constantly waiting for an event to happen. This expectation not only created and strengthened the desire to read and continue the story in me but also made me have enough patience to pass through some of the sometimes tiring parts of the plot. The quietness of the created space contributed significantly to this matter.

5. Some of my friends here said, and I also want to emphasize more, that in the edition published by Niloufar, translated by Soroush Habibi, one of the important chapters of the book has been added as an appendix at the end of the story. This chapter, which is incidentally important and readable, should be read at its original place, that is, on page 576 and after the section "Ivan Tersatovich" to better understand the course of events in the story. This action of Niloufar Publishing House has no justification, and if you ever plan to read this book, keep this point in mind.... I should also mention a positive point here. A story of about 970 pages, at the end of which there is a useful criticism of about 50 pages. It reaches the hands of Hamidreza Atashbar Abi, who adds several times the volume of the story to the criticism and examination and makes the book more expensive than before with these spatial prices.

6. As a beginner and ordinary reader of literature, I think and I'm sure that I didn't understand many points of the book or they didn't come to my attention. I should read the book with more attention in the next rereading. Only the "Brothers Karamazov" remains among the important works of Dostoyevsky. If I have a life, I will read it in the spring of 1404, and from the fall of the same year, I will start rereading his important works with the help of books published in the criticism and examination of Dostoyevsky's works.

A group of radicals, under the guidance of their seemingly malignant leader, Verkhovensky, wreak havoc on a town. The story is filled with great comic moments and remarkable characterizations by a superb writer. This work was regarded as Dostoevsky's 'problem' novel, written as a critique against radicalism.

In my opinion, it fares poorly when compared to most of his other masterpieces. While it may have its merits, it doesn't quite reach the same heights as some of his more renowned works.

Out of a total of 12, I would rate it a 5.

The image adds a visual element to the review, perhaps hinting at the chaos and turmoil that unfolds within the story.

Overall, it's an interesting read, but not one that stands out among Dostoevsky's extensive body of work.

This novel could just as easily be called "The Origins of SOCIALISM." However, the concept should not be interpreted in an ideological sense (its origins could even be traced back to ancient Greece: Pericles, for example, although he did not systematize his beliefs, implemented the fundamental premises of socialism through his policies), but strictly historically. No one really knows when the first International was founded. Historical dates are not important because at the beginning it was confused with a compact nucleus consisting of several people with a more "progressive" vision. What is certain is that in 1848, the year that brought so many changes to Europe, there were already several groups that were campaigning for the "common cause."

As such, in 1872, when Dostoevsky published "Demons," everyone knew about the so-called "groups of 5," organized in a pyramidal structure (like today's terrorist organizations - see the film "The Battle of Algiers," 1966). The reason for this form of organization is easy to understand. Since the right to free expression was just emerging, the militants of the "common cause" could not take the megaphone and could not start to support their ideas. "Actions against today's constitutional order"... You would be thrown in jail.

This is exactly what Dostoevsky describes in "Demons." The problem, as we said, is that socialism is not treated from an ideological perspective, but strictly historically. The novel does not abound in debates and monologues, as is the case in "The Brothers Karamazov," but simply presents a group of internationalists: some with great ideals, others less so.

That is precisely why, in the novel, it is not the ideas that are interesting, but the people. Ideas cannot be corrupt in themselves, but only people. People can be - yes! - corrupted by ideas, but an idea cannot be corrupted. That is why Piotr Stepanovich, although he appears the most in the novel, is not the main character. He does not have a crisis of conscience. The main character is Stavrogin, in whose case we can speak of an atypical suffering.

The novel "Demons" is not a declared war on socialism (What? Tismăneanu supports this!). Of course, at a superficial glance, anything can be affirmed/ supported. However, to claim that through "Demons," Dostoevsky renounced socialism (which he himself supported in 1848, until the moment of the guillotine) denotes a superficial judgment. To claim that Dostoevsky renounced socialism means to claim that novels like "Poor People" or "Notes from the House of the Dead" have no value. However, they convey ideas. Ideas are not coagulated under the tutelage of a single concept. But does the name or content of a belief matter?!

What Dostoevsky does in "Demons" is to condemn the so-called leaders of socialism (Piotr Stepanovich, in our case), who distort the vitalizing substance of this concept in such a way, for the satisfaction of their own interests, that nothing remains of it. Or, in other words: what remains, for posterity, is the image of a bad policy. That is? See Russia in 1917. My support - perhaps too energetic - has its basis among the lines of the novel. The passage from the Gospel of Luke is frequently quoted in the novel (in fact, the motto of the novel is represented by this): VIII, 32-36.

32. And there was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33. Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.
34. When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.
35. Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
36. They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed.

Moreover, it cannot be claimed that Dostoevsky wrote the novel as a confession, he being the one "healed of demons," because, on his deathbed, Stepan Trofimovich quotes from the Bible regarding his son (who was not "healed"), respectively regarding Piotr Stepanovich.

This is, moreover, also the source of the title.

I will not say anything about Kirillov, for I would spoil the flavor of the novel. It is worth reading 800 pages just for this character.

Regarding the poor Stavrogin... oh! However, he seemed to me the most worthy character in the novel. Although he denies nihilism in front of the "last confession," his life was, in fact, nothing but a sick nihilism. Even his "attacks" had their origin in the belief in nothing. Moreover, Stavrogin would be an ideal character to analyze in a study with a theme such as: Today's boredom, yesterday's nihilism (I believe there are many similarities).

Note: The undersigned is a socialist. The reader must be skeptical.

"The perfect atheist occupies the penultimate step that precedes perfect faith (whether he will take this last step or not, that is another matter): the indifferent, on the contrary, has no faith at all, but only a bad fear from time to time, and if he is a sensitive person."

"Man has done nothing but invent a God in order to be able to live without killing himself; this is the whole universal history up to now. I am the first in all universal history who has not wanted to invent a God. Let this be known once and for all." - Kirillov.

10+
26 February 2018.

“Although there was nothing to be surprised at, still there’s always something shocking about reality when it stares you right in the face.”

Man, I absolutely adore Dostoevsky. His works have a profound impact on me, and Devils is no exception. This was truly the right book at the right time. I think because of my youth, the themes explored in Devils spoke to me on a completely different level.

Usually, I read Dostoevsky’s longer works by splitting them up into parts, taking breaks in between and reading something different. But Devils had me hooked from the very first pages, and I couldn't put it down. I read it back to back, completely immersed in its world.

What I found particularly refreshing and thought-provoking about Devils was its witty commentary on all kinds of social issues. This book was published in the 1870s, yet it still has something relevant to say today. That's the genius of Dostoevsky!

To my mind, being politically extreme is a sign of youth. We rush headfirst into ideas and hold onto them with fierce conviction. But in a year, we may have dropped those ideas, be ashamed of our old selves, and perhaps even be on the complete other side of the spectrum. Maybe it's just me, but I'm sure many of us have experienced this.

And this is exactly what we see in Stavrogin's character. He has a conversation with Shatov where he's confronted with his old ideas and seems to recognize them only hesitatingly. It seems like he never commits wholeheartedly to an idea. He even says himself, "I can never lose my reason and never believe in an idea to the extent he did. I can't even get interested in an idea to that extent." Stavrogin is lukewarm, and it's hard to get a real understanding of his character.

"Why does everyone expect more from me than from other people? Why should I have to put up with things that no one else does, bear burdens that no one else can bear?"

Life seems to be a huge burden for Stavrogin to carry. Everyone has such high expectations of him that he feels he can't meet them. So, he does everything in his power to disappoint and shock. He doesn't accept help and wants to be seen as the monster he is. It seems he doesn't feel as others do, always stuck on the surface and never feeling deeply or earnestly.

"I don't invite anyone into my soul; I don't need any help; I can get along on my own. Do you think I'm afraid of you?"

His utter lack of emotion is especially evident in his relationship with Liza. With Dostoevsky, love and hate are always two sides of the same coin. "Through her persistent, sincere, and intense hatred of you come frequent bursts of love and… madness […] On the other hand, through the love she feels for me, which is also sincere, come frequent bursts of hatred — such intense hatred!" Stavrogin also experiences these mad bursts of passion, but they still don't seem to be in earnest. In this fashion, he professes his growing love for Liza, "I swear, I loved you less yesterday." And then just a few pages further, the reader learns that he doesn't love her at all, "Last night she guessed somehow that I don't love her at all…" In German, you'd say Stavrogin "ist nichts Halbes und nichts Ganzes." He has no moral substance in any way.

But let's move on to the main conflict of Devils: the generational conflict. This is a topic that will always be relevant, and Dostoevsky, as usual, portrays it with artistic acumen and genius.

It's the elders not taking the youth seriously, "It’s also our own idea, ours. We, we were the first to plant it, nurture it, prepare the way — what could they possibly say that was new after us? But good Lord, just look how all of it’s expressed, distorted, twisted." Speaking a new word aloud makes it accessible to anyone, and it can be distorted and abused by all the generations to come. In the end, you may not even be able to recognize it. But this is how ideas work; their value lies in their accessibility. Ideas have to be distorted and changed to offer flexible solutions to new and old problems. But this is what the elder generation doesn't agree with.

"you can’t imagine what grief and bitterness envelop your entire soul when a great idea you’ve long regarded as sacred is suddenly seized upon by ignorant people and dragged into the street before other fools, just like themselves,"

They don't see the youth struggling in the same way they did in the past. Similarly, the youth can't fathom their elders having struggled comparably. The young generation feels alone in their pursuit of freedom, and their elders are seen as shallow and ignorant of their fight. Peter Stepanovich is the epitome of this notion. I'd compare him to Faust's Mephisto in the way he was just offending people for the fun of it. He was trying to shock with his radicalism, declaring, for example, how "the government deliberately gets common people drunk either vodka to brutalize them and keep them from rebelling." He saw himself as justified in his behavior because he was fighting for the common cause, and these old geezers were just vegetating.

I admit, I absolutely loved Peter Stepanovich. He was just so unapologetically evil. Fighting with sarcasm, cynicism, and so much anger. He felt absolutely superior to everyone around him. But was he rightfully so?

"Why, who’s to keep an eye on them, those people who speak their minds?"

Most interestingly, this character is the complete opposite of his own father. Stepan Trofimovich is paralyzed in his comfort. He doesn't dare act on his own ("this most innocent of fifty-year-old babes!"), and when he finally does, he searches frantically for the next woman to latch on to. Still, he is the most (maybe the only) sensitive character in this book. Stepan Trofimovich is so far removed from reality, and so are his ideas. Beauty is the highest good, the thing of most value to him. Understandably, his behavior and ideas annoy and anger the more pragmatic characters in this book.

"Don’t you know mankind can survive […] without science, without bread — but not without beauty, for then there’d be nothing left to do on earth!"

There is definitely so much more to touch upon in this review, but unfortunately, I have exams to study for -.- Let's conclude that this is my favorite of Dostoevsky's works so far. In my eyes, Devils is the perfect work of literature, and I had an absolute blast reading it.

My honorable mention is a passage in the book about the essence of a journal article written by the lovely Karmazinov: "Why are you staring at this drowned corpse holding a dead child in its lifeless arms? Look at me instead; see how I couldn’t stand this spectacle and had to avert my eyes."

“El muro sobre el cual los profetas escribieron
está desmoronándose…

Entre las férreas puertas del destino,
las semillas del tiempo fueron sembradas,
y regadas con las hazañas de aquellos
quienes conocen y son célebres;
mortal aliado es el conocimiento,
cuando nadie limita las reglas.
Veo cómo la suerte de toda la humanidad
está en manos de locos.”

Epitaph/Peter Sinfield/Kig Crimson.

Leer a Dostoievski no sólo es un gran placer y una refinada cultivación del intelecto. Es también un vigorizante del poder analítico y una exploración filosófica por esos mundos intermedios que flotan entre el arte, la ciencia y la filosofía. Esta extensa novela que el genial escritor ruso nos presenta es una compleja radiografía de los diversos estratos de la sociedad. Él hace una crítica tanto a la rancia aristocracia con todas sus anacrónicas formalidades, como a la postura liberal que buscaba cambiar toda la tradición feudal, plagada de desigualdades. Además, el escritor desarrolla su línea argumental en torno al movimiento nihilista como una forma extrema y destructiva para romper con aquella sociedad en cualquiera de sus formas.

Este nihilismo político y moral busca la destrucción total, el caos en todos sentidos: en las formas, en las instituciones, en los valores. La obra también tiene un fuerte componente religioso, cuestionando la fe y enfrentándola con el ateísmo, así como a la incredulidad total que conlleva la destrucción de Dios. Sin Dios no hay mundo, ni un fundamento último que le dé sentido a la vida.

“Los Demonios” o “Los Endemoniados” es un campo magnético donde siguen batallando las fuerzas más poderosas de la mente moderna: la fe y la incredulidad; la ideología y la religión; el fin y los medios; la razón y su consecuencia o inconsecuencia extrema materializada en el fanatismo. La narración presenta a los nihilistas como víctimas de una densa dialéctica donde la creencia y la incredulidad son dos caras que se contraponen de manera sobrecogedora. Sus debates son llevados por el escritor a una zona dramática absolutamente nueva.

La creación de personajes es algo cautivante en toda la literatura y en especial en las novelas de Dostoievski. En esta ocasión, Dostoievski nos sorprende con la creación de muchos personajes. Pero mención especial merece nombrar la invención que hace del “terrorista” (Kirillov), dotándolo de ese loco deseo, de esa convicción fanática de ofrendar su vida únicamente por la ideología de la que está plenamente convencido y que es su razón de vivir.

Sería imposible detallar todos los personajes a los cuales Dostoievski les da vida en esta novela. Sin embargo, es importante mencionar a los más principales, cuyo carácter le da gran significado al argumento. Nikolai Stravoguin y Piotr Stepánovich son verdaderas almas malditas, auténticos demonios de la acción. El primero es el instrumento pasivo y el otro el elemento activo de lo demoníaco. Destacan también Shátov y Kirillov que representan el potencial paso de la maldad del espíritu demoníaco a la liberación por medio de la fe.

El personaje principal, Piotr Stepánovich Verjovenskii, está inspirado en Serguéi Gennádevich Necháiev quien murió prisionero en la fortaleza de Pedro y Pablo tras protagonizar la carrera terrorista más escalofriante del populismo ruso. Esta gran obra ha sido interpretada en múltiples formas y se le han dado muchos significados a diferentes pasajes tanto filosóficos, como éticos y religiosos. También hay interpretaciones proféticas, ya que Dostoievski tuvo la capacidad de presagiar las revoluciones y movimientos anarquistas y nihilistas que sobrevinieron en el siglo XX en la Gran Rusia.

Esta obra contiene una gran carga política, ética, social y religiosa. Es muy probable que el argumento político se haya nutrido de las ideas que entonces bullían en Europa. Dostoievski tuvo un especial interés por las ideas socialistas y llegó a formar parte de un círculo de intelectuales que leían obras prohibidas de socialistas franceses. Posteriormente, Dostoievski regresó a las tradiciones eslavas y religiosas. Entre todas las ideas que pudieron servir como caldo de cultivo para la concepción de esta novela, destacan aquellas de Karl Marx y otros notables pensadores.

La influencia de Dostoievski en la literatura y el pensamiento universal es irrefutable. En Rusia se dejó sentir de manera especial entre 1890 y 1915. En Europa, el fenómeno Dostoievski llegó hacia 1905. Pero su mayor influjo sobre Francia, Alemania e Inglaterra, así como en Estados Unidos y el resto de América, tuvo lugar a partir de la década de 1940 y nunca se ha detenido.