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.

Another huge work of the renowned Dostoyevsky, along with Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov.

It is a novel with a political content, aiming to criticize nihilism in Russia, from which many analyses emerged, such as that of Camus.

Dostoyevsky's works are known for their deep exploration of human nature and the complex social and psychological issues of his time.

This particular novel not only delves into the theme of nihilism but also presents a vivid picture of the Russian society of the era.

The characters in the story are richly developed, each with their own unique personalities and motives.

Through their interactions and experiences, Dostoyevsky examines the consequences of nihilistic beliefs and the search for meaning and purpose in life.

The novel has had a significant impact on literature and continues to be studied and discussed by scholars and readers alike.

Demons exist, and there is no doubt about it, but our understanding of them is very different.

In the professionalism of Professor Soroush Habibi in the matter of translation, there is no doubt, and he is one of my favorite translators, but I cannot refrain from writing this criticism.

Mr. Soroush Habibi, for a 1019-page book, you have not bothered to write even one page of introduction, and at that time, after 918 pages, in a place called the appendix, you have come and written that this chapter, which comes from the next page, should be read in such and such a place?!

What is this situation? We used to be accustomed to and fought against the fact that some novice translators put appendices in the introductions until I encountered this example!!!

Let's assume that the translator has done this, is the work of the publisher in Iran only to increase the price in each reprint in proportion to inflation? Have the managers of Niloufar Publications themselves read the book at all?!

Let's pass, because the more I say, the more effective it is like a check on cold iron!

Attention, attention, attention! An important advisory note

The chapter that the translator has placed at the end of the book on page 919 is a chapter that has been deleted, and its place in the second book (the second part of the book) is after the eighth chapter (Ivan Turgenev), that is, exactly on page 575, but the translator and publisher have tried to write a few lines of explanation in the form of an introduction at the beginning of the book, count the money from the daily sales of the book that is rising due to inflation, and laugh at the people!

For this reason, I felt it necessary to warn you, my dear friends, from this tribune, to read this section at the right time for yourself, not like me, after the end of the book!

Writing about demons is not easy, just as reading it was not easy, and it was a difficult, complex and long journey to the depths of the soul and spirit of its characters, but without entering the content of the story of the book, I am trying to write about it on my own level in a few paragraphs and sentences.

Comparison note

If I want to rank the works that I have read from Dostoyevsky to date according to the three elements of "interest, level and attraction", then the result is in line with:

1. The Brothers Karamazov


2. Crime and Punishment


3. Demons


4. The Idiot


5. The Adolescent


6. A Raw Youth


7. White Nights


8. The Insulted and Injured

Invitation note

After reading the book, in order to sort out the data in my mind, I went to read the reviews of my friends in Goderich and saw that some of the reviews were really at a high level and were very readable, so I thought it would be better to invite you to read these reviews instead of copying the writings of these friends, so that first of all, the rights of the author are preserved, secondly, you get acquainted with good book-loving friends, and thirdly, we do not take away the pleasure of reading their writings from you.

Review by Aptin Golkar:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Review by Mehla:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Review by Rooya:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Review by Mohammad Qa'em Khani:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Discussion about my interest in Alexei Nilych Kirillov

Before saying anything, I must admit that perhaps apart from a few readers, I became a fan of the character of "Alexei Nilych Kirillov", and every night after closing the book and my eyes, I tried to imagine his face, and after reading the book, when I searched for his name on Google, completely randomly, I saw a lot of pictures that I still don't know if they are related to a movie, a theater performance or a mini-series, but whatever it was, it was very, very close to what I was imagining in my mind.

The encounter of Alexei Nilych Kirillov with Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky in the last moments of his life and the rise and fall of his spirit was one of the masterpieces of this book:

"I have the duty to declare my atheism. For me, there is no thought higher than the denial of God! The whole history of mankind testifies to my words. 'The invention of man is the thought of the existence of God.' Man has found this way so that he does not have to break himself. The history of the world until now has been nothing but this!"

A shadow on demons from my language

Dostoyevsky once again proved with Demons that he is a genius. Demons can be considered a political, philosophical and social book.

Political when he was teaching politics:

"It is easier to get ahead of everything and it is more difficult to produce an idea in the head."

"Which way do you prefer? Do we go forward with a tailcoat and flounder in the mud, or do we pass over the mud with an eagle?"

"I well understand why the rich are pouring out of the country like a flood, and this flood is becoming more and more severe every year. Greed is the reason! When a ship is about to sink, the mice sense it first and flee from it."

Philosophical when he was teaching philosophy:

"The truth always has the sound of truth. If you want to take this sound away from it, you must add a little lie to it."

"I am familiar with the affairs of the human heart... One can be sure that he will no longer gossip... because now the person is happy..."

Social when he was teaching about life:

"Sometimes, just the long presence of two friends is very harmful to true friendship."

"There is nothing more unbearable than when a person's fortune turns and all his friends gather and tell him that his actions have been stupid."

"We are all sinners, all sinners. If only everyone confessed to their sins..."

I admit that the 10 days that I spent reading Demons, I loved it and enjoyed reading the book line by line, and I repeat my old wish that if only one day man could learn the science of copying man and at that time another Dostoyevsky would create a work in line with his original sample to write for mankind again.

Note:

I reserve the right to make fundamental changes to this review after classifying the data in my mind, studying several related articles about the work, and searching and finding that movie or performance whose pictures I saw on Google.

Quotation note

"Habit does what it does not do!"

"What can imagination do!"

"Some friends are very strange. Both sides want to shed each other's blood and tear each other's flesh. They spend their whole lives like this, but they cannot part from each other. It can even be said that their separation is impossible. If one of them leaves on a pretext and cuts off the connection, the first one will get sick and perhaps even die!"

"The nobler a person is, the more clearly his conscience is reflected in the mirror of his face."

"People are of two kinds. One kind destroys themselves out of anger, or out of a lot of anger or out of madness and such things. These people do the work all at once, without thinking about pain. The other group does this work with thought and based on logic. These people think for a lifetime."

"Complete freedom is when living or dying is the same for a person, and this is actually the goal of all."

"The more depressed a person is, or the more downtrodden a nation is, the more deeply rooted the hope of the afterlife and the dream of heaven is in their hearts, especially when the thousand-year-old religious voice constantly blows on the fire of this hope and seeks its own interests in it."

"Replacing God is not easy."

"Which way do you prefer? Do we go forward with a tailcoat and flounder in the mud, or do we pass over the mud with an eagle?"

"The second half of a person's life is formed by the habits that have accumulated in the first half."

"There is nothing more unbearable than when a person's fortune turns and all his friends gather and tell him that his actions have been stupid."

"We must take the wise with us and ride on the backs of the fools. You should not be ashamed of this. The present generation must be re-educated to be worthy of freedom."

"The reason I didn't commit suicide was fear. Some people are afraid of suicide, and some are afraid of living."

Program

Five stars and nothing else

Roman is about human nature and the tendency towards change, revolution, that is, the perception and understanding of Russia at that time.

But not only his homeland, but the entire humanity, civilization, every individual who gets lost and drowns while trying to find a right and honest solution in the sea of evil and corrupt possibilities.

The work is about the idea of death and suicide as the ultimate act of resistance, freedom, or rather an attempt to avoid the imposed fate.

The book is about God, or rather, about reexamining His (non)existence, and thinking about whether man is indeed a being that was "created" by God.

These writings are, in the end, about morality, that is, about good and evil in man.

More at the link: https://pepeoreci.wordpress.com/2018/...

The story of Raskolnikov in this novel also poses an eternal question that is still disturbing and appears in various forms in our personal and social lives. The question is: Can one commit a crime in the name of a lofty goal? Or, in a more general and vulgar formulation: Does the end justify the means?

Raskolnikov's story in this novel was written in response to a real incident that became famous in Russian history as the "murder of the student Ivanov": Sergei Nechaev, the leader of the revolutionary-terrorist group "People's Retribution", due to some differences of opinion with 23-year-old Ivan Ivanov, decided with the members of his group to kill him and carried out his plan in order to both strengthen the unity of the group and increase his own influence and power. But apparently, in this incident, what attracted Dostoyevsky's attention the most was the question of how a person who has the goal of reforming and improving the world in mind (the goal of every revolutionary) can himself be the author of evil and commit destruction and massacre. The spirit of revolutionary terrorism, the ethics and values of nihilism, and the idea that in order to create a new world, the old world must first be completely destroyed, had a wide following among young Russians at that time, and many of the intellectuals, writers, and leading critics also fanned this fire.

The name of the novel is taken from the eighth chapter of the Gospel of Luke and is a story about demons that had possessed a person and at the will of Jesus Christ were cast out of that person into a herd of pigs and drowned in the lake. In Dostoyevsky's novel too, we witness that an idea and thought that is blindly imposed on people without the necessary mental and moral preparation can turn them into demons who, on the way to the goal they envision, will do anything without reason. When all the previous values and moral principles are completely negated, the only guiding light remaining is that very idea, and any action, whether it is devilish, or murder and destruction, seems justifiable on the way to achieving the goal.

Reading Dostoyevsky's novel is very instructive in this regard. The modern reader of the book may find it somewhat tiresome and the descriptions and explanations in it overly detailed and long, but the intellectual and ideological content of it must surely overcome this defect (if we indeed consider it a defect) and attract the reader to the story.