The first time I read "The Possessed", I was twenty years old, and I don't think I was as captivated by it as I am now. Although even now, I don't have the full understanding that this remarkable work deserves. As much as my limited mind allows me to understand the effects of Dostoyevsky's story, I'm trying, as always, to understand what has happened: The story of "The Possessed" describes events in one of the Russian cities and has a political, social, and moral aspect. The hero of the story is a young Russian named Nikolay Stavrogin, around whom all the events take place, and even when he has no direct role in them, there is still mention and reference to him.

Constantine Mochulsky, in his critique of "The Possessed", says that all the women and men who are around Stavrogin are a reflection of one of his personalities. He, who has no hope because of the sins he has committed in the past due to his weaknesses, enters the story in search of saving himself from his own conscience and engages in actions that give him the right to achieve this statement of his own: "I want to forgive myself. This is my most important goal." Stavrogin "thinks" that he has no faith in God (but it can be said that he is on the verge between faith and unbelief), but he has faith in the devil and sometimes sees him in different forms in his solitude. Even once he says to the former monk Tikhon: "Can one have faith in the devil without faith in God?" Stavrogin's attempts to forgive himself are evident in the actions of those other characters in the story who are a reflection of himself, such as Shatov, Shigalyov, and Kirillov. But in the end, this man, who was himself a philosopher of God (because he said that good and evil cannot be distinguished from each other, and in fact, there is no good and evil, and everything is permissible), is destroyed by his own moral corruption (because all the things and efforts he has made in the direction of saving and forgiving himself were with the intention of pride, ambition, and a desire for power). And the people who were around him are also corrupted in various ways.

This is one of the few novels by Dostoyevsky that I haven't read. I believe it is not only his most political but also the most prescient in today's world.

Particularly, it explores the individual's encounter with corrupt systems, the trend towards anarchy and rebellion, and the complex webs of power that confine all individuals to their oppressive societies, despite their strenuous efforts to break free from these restrictions.

I think "Demons" should be read after some of Dostoyevsky's more elaborately plotted and profound psychological works, especially novels like "Crime and Punishment" and "The Brothers Karamazov". The latter is still fresh in my mind as I was reading "Demons". The dialogue that these texts engage in with each other makes "Demons" more profound, deeply moving, and an outstanding achievement.

Every sentence is both a source of joy and a minor heartbreak. Without a doubt, this will prompt me to prioritize rereads of Dostoyevsky's work on my to-read list. What an amazing book it is!

All fantasy writers should read Dostoyevsky.

In his writing, he is a master at building a complete world, and there are very few writers like him in this regard. However, his descriptions do not stop at the characteristics such as what color of cement is used in the building or whether the water in the lake is black. Let me give an example. One of the main characters in this book (the book is known by different names in English, the most common ones being Demons, The Devils, and The Possessed) is named Stepan Trofimovich. In one of the last chapters, he leaves the house and goes out. He doesn't know where he is going. It is drizzling a little. The light rain stops and then starts again. Stepan Trofimovich is a proud man. He walks like a madman and suddenly realizes that he has come a long way. Like this, he is standing on a black road. The ruts of the wheels of the carriage pulled by the horse are deeply engraved on that road. There are willow trees lined up on both sides of the path. That road is as deserted as a string without a knot and has extended far away. In the distance, in the far horizon, the smoke of a train can be seen, but the sound of it does not reach the ears.

Stepan Trofimovich is what is called a failed man. An incompetent intellectual. He has spent his whole life with his nose buried in books and talking big things like 'our country, our society is going to decline'. But when he tried to change the society, he fled in the face of a little failure. He came to the province and took refuge in the house of his wealthy relative. There he was kept as a kind of protected person. The chapter I mentioned above is the description of a time when Stepan Trofimovich left that house and went out. For the first time in his life, he faced the rural environment of Russia. This world is completely unknown to him. He has got lost, both mentally and literally.

What could be more accurate than the description of the above road to convey the experience of facing this unknown world? The sign of the citizen who knows the'sophisticated' life that Stepan Trofimovich knows can be seen in the mechanical train. But it is far away, outside his sight. The road where he is standing is as dark as a cave and as desolate as anxiety. Even nature seems to be infected with this emotion and has become unpredictable. When the rain will come again and when it will stop - nothing can be said.

Now let's come back to the topic of building a fantasy world. Fantasy is a genre where the world of our imagination does not exist only in our minds but becomes a vivid world surrounding us. What is internal becomes external in fantasy. Here, the gate of hell ignites, the feeling of courage takes the form of a hero, and the power of fate is shown as a prophecy and a curse. Therefore, when a kingdom, a dragon, or a tavern is shown in fantasy, just showing how they look is not enough. Because every thing is associated with some human emotion. If the kingdom is decadent, then its sky should be covered with polluted clouds, there should be flashes of fire from time to time, and instead of trees, there should be only rough stones - just like the image of a country that comes to our mind when we think of a warmonger or a crazy industrialist. The dragon could be a destructive, terrifying weapon or the invincible power of nature like Moby Dick. The tavern will be the fire of our courage against danger, which will ignite when it sees the possibility of danger.

There are many examples of this kind of world-building in Dostoyevsky's novels. And there are also complex and deep characters like living people. Almost all the main characters in this book are memorable. Especially Stavrogin and Kirillov have interested me. Kirillov, who was an existentialist before the birth of existentialism. A very likable character. Stavrogin, one of those extraordinary and disturbing characters in literature whom we want to know more closely because he keeps everyone away. Although there is a character named Shatov, I don't like him as much as the author likes him. Throughout the whole book, Dostoyevsky has made a terrifying and merciless satire of the Hamburg intelligentsia, the idle, the out-of-touch rich class, and various idealists. He had the opportunity to observe these people very closely in real life.

I also like the main theme of this book. Currently, one of the few books I am reading is Pamuk's Istanbul. There he has insulted Dostoyevsky by calling him a 'West-hating Slav' (or something like that). Or maybe he said it with respect. I don't know enough about Pamuk as I have only read three of his books. But maybe this idea of Pamuk came after reading Demons. Anyway, I don't agree with Dostoyevsky's political or religious beliefs, but he is one of my favorite writers. Reading the book Demons has not changed that.

Dostoevsky's corner in my library is a place I love to frequent at all times, finding无尽的 joy in literature and philosophy, spending several days as a guest of his amazing pen.

Without going to the punctuation point in the story, it is difficult for me to bring out a word from the book. After Dostoevsky's introduction about Stepan Trofimovich in the chaos of events and the worldview of the author as a prisoner, we become.

Dostoevsky, in the nihilistic frenzy that is the product of the absolute rationality of his era, in the chorus and cry of "God is dead," speaks of the return of metaphysical values, the need for spiritual faith, and the pursuit of the French. He spends a thousand pages trying to revive the dead God.

Stavrogin is the most puzzling character among the men he has created and given. A person who stands opposite the simple-minded and stupidity of Prince Myshkin. He is a superman from below or, better to say, a model of the "average man"; a person who, from the perspective of Nietzsche, has pulled God down from the throne of glory and based himself on His position. Stavrogin, in the struggle between good and evil, standing at the zero point of absolute indifference, despises the evil of vice and praises the nobility of good. He is an image of the extreme of human power; someone who is not God but the devil himself.

Stavrogin is worshiped, attracted, admired, and sacrificed; but he is confused and does not know how to use this godlike power.

Although he has given the reins of his soul to the devil, there is still a place in his human heart, and he has no escape from the punishment of the attacks of "consciousness."

The story of Shatov and Stavrogin is like a drawn water that Dostoevsky only plays with under the guise of this superficiality and does not see it as anything but a fall, a terrible turmoil, and a dangerous disaster that has befallen human life. He created a masterpiece that is still a forerunner of his time today.

Under the political and social substructures of the novel, the socialist revolution in the rural society of Russia is presented as an unsuccessful comedy that has no result but chaos. He predicts the October Revolution and the emergence of Stalin in the guise of the character Shigalyov.

Stepan Trofimovich, in the role of an intellectual who has sown the seeds of hard speech in the mouths of the next generation after himself, Stavrogin and Pyotr, finally succumbs to the will of the author and confesses and repents.

Dostoevsky wrote the devils in response to the nihilistic questions of his time, in the pulse of the currents of intellectualism, and in the wake of that, the revolutionary movements of the socialists in his society. As a warning against the emergence of socialism in a society where the interests of the workers become the plaything of the hands of ambitious men like Pyotr Trofimovich. And it happened...

Stepan Trofimovich, Kirillov, Shatov, Liza, Maria Timofyevna, Liputin, Lebyadkin, Darya, Fedka, and Varvara Petrovna are each the dusty pawns of Dostoevsky's chess game and at the same time a part of himself.

Dostoevsky has no concern but humanity, and in my opinion, Kirillov, who has risen from the grave, is the most similar character to him. In the text of the terrible tragedy of The Devils, he creates another angel and entrusts the proof of the existence or non-existence of God to human consciousness.

The godless community entrusts good and evil to human nature and "gives existence to love of superiority." A person who is not far from being transformed into a completely black devil in appearance and a charming face.

The Possessed or Demons, known by both names, is perhaps the most mysterious of Dostoyevsky's novels. The first half consists of a long, winding monologue about an elderly man, Stepan Verkhovensky, a twice widower, and his wealthy patroness, Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina, and their twenty-year relationship full of pettiness, which is alternately humorous and curious. The unnamed narrator hints that this is leading up to something, which, considering the length, is a good thing, but it still feels like a long detour.

The Possessed is also a comedic-tragedy or a tragedy with many funny parts. I don't quite agree with those who call it a comedy, but I did find myself laughing in the middle of some of the most serious scenes. This happened more often than in Shakespearean episodes of comic relief, which I believe sets this novel apart from many others. It's not quite one thing, yet not quite another.

The second half of the novel is completely different from the first and is the reason to persevere through the opening. Two almost polar opposite generations are presented: that of Stepan and Varvara, and that of their children, Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky and Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin. Here, the plot shifts from narration to action, with violence and much bloodshed. We also learn the reason for the title, which comes from Scripture, specifically the story of Jesus curing the man possessed by many demons in Mark 5:1–5:13.

This is another book that I think requires multiple readings for full appreciation, at least for this reader. Two reviews that I found particularly good are here and here. They both contain spoilers, so be forewarned, but if you've already struggled through on your own without much understanding, perspective is crucial.

It's a pity that this novel isn't better known. 4.5 stars

In the world of literature, Dostoyevsky's works have always been a source of profound exploration and intense emotions. The novel under discussion takes Dostoyevskism to a new extreme, with its slow beginnings, highly emotional characters, and long, detailed scenes.

For instance, there is a remarkable scene where eleven characters are crammed into a single room, each playing a crucial role over the course of about fifty pages.

You might initially think, after reading the first two hundred pages, that nothing significant is going to happen. However, this would be a misjudgment. By the end of the novel, you will have witnessed a plethora of events, including a gun-duel, multiple murders, three suicides, natural death, adultery, a secret marriage, unrequited loves, arson, a beautiful child-birth scene, a family reunion, riots, and dancing-balls-gone-wrong. It truly has it all.

The narrator, a seemingly unimportant character, is a close friend of Stepan, a widower. He presents himself as a great observer of people, with others easily confiding their secrets in him, yet not regarding him as a person of great consequence.

He begins by stating that he is writing Stepan's biography but soon narrows his focus to the latter's last few days. He often delves into matters that have no direct connection to Stepan or that he couldn't possibly know, such as the private conversations between a husband and wife in their bedroom.

Stepan, the supposed subject of the novel, is an easily excitable intellect. Despite being respected in his time, he appears to have achieved little of significance and has an irritating habit of using French phrases. Although he shows some keen insights into the politics of his era, he fails to take any meaningful action.

He is maintained by a rich widow, Varvara, a woman of strong character, with whom he has a rather strange relationship. She keeps him in her house, maintaining a platonic connection, angrily refuses his marriage proposal, reads his daily (sometimes twice-daily) letters without ever replying, often throws him out only to seek him out later, and even arranges a match between him and a young servant. And yet, when he is on his deathbed, she vaguely reproaches him for wasting twenty years. This is just one of the many complex love stories in this novel.

The 'demons' in the title refer to the new ideas that seem to be plaguing Russia. Stepan's son, Pyotr, is a nihilist and anarchist, a cunning and annoying individual who reminds one of Cassius in Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. He pretends to be a socialist but is actually using it as a means to manipulate the people in his organization for personal gain.

Dostoyevsky's view on socialism seems to align with that of Stavrogin (Varvara's son), who remarks, 'It’s a great idea but its exponents are not always great men.' Pyotr's followers seem to have little understanding of socialism, being more fascinated by its emotional and idealistic aspects rather than its practicalities.

Pyotr's strategy of binding people to his leadership by making them commit crimes for him is a tactic that appears to be quite common among politicians. Dostoyevsky also makes the astute observation that 'The convictions and the man are two very different things.'

One of the characters, Shigalev, suggests a social system called Shigalevism, which proposes that ninety percent of the population should be slaves to the remaining ten percent. Shigalev not only suggests this but also argues that all systems ultimately end up like this and that it is the only system that can survive. This is an interesting perspective on modern economies, whether capitalist or socialist, given the income inequalities that exist in all of them.

The character of Stavrogin remains somewhat of a mystery until the very end, partly because one chapter that contained the key to his character was censored. However, it has since been translated by Woolf, along with Dostoyevsky's notes on an unwritten novel, as 'Stavrogin's Confession & the Plan of the Life of a Great Sinner'.

Once again, Dostoyevsky hints at a Lolita-like sexuality in young girls, as he did in 'Crime and Punishment', although this time it is not just a dream.

The novel also explores the theme of suicide through the character of Kirillov, who believes that since there is no God, he can become God by killing himself. His reasoning is complex, but some of his statements include, 'If there is no God, then I’m God,' 'God has tormented me all my life,' and 'Everyone who wants the supreme freedom must dare to kill himself.'

Karmazinov is Dostoyevsky's parody of his contemporary Ivan Turgenev, the author of 'Fathers and Sons', another novel that examines the 'nihilist' generation. Dostoyevsky also uses the allegorical relationship of fathers and sons in the characters of Stepan (the liberal idealist) and Pyotr (the nihilist).

The novel is filled with confusion, with Stavrogin's actions being particularly convoluted. He tries to take advantage of an eleven-year-old, cheats with Marie on her husband, and marries Marya, a sort of holy fool who is the narrator's favorite. And this doesn't even include Darya and Lisa, who both have crushes on him. Lisa had a crush on Nikolai (Stavrogin) but was engaged to Nikolaevich instead. Marie's husband, Shatov, has a habit of changing his ideas and walking out insultingly on people when he feels used or called upon to compromise his dignity. He is not the same as Shiagalov. Also, although he punches Stavrogin, it is not because of the latter's affair with his wife Marie but rather because he made Marya pregnant. Truly a web of confusion!

Some of the notable quotes from the novel include, 'Poetry is nonsense and justifies what would be considered imprudence in prose,' 'A woman would deceive the all-seeing eye itself. Le bon Dieu knew what He was in for when He was creating woman, but I'm sure that she meddled in it herself and forced Him to create her such as she is,' and 'How can we expect a cultured man not to commit a murder, if he is in need of money.'

Overall, this novel is a complex and engaging exploration of human nature, society, and ideas, filled with Dostoyevsky's trademark depth and intensity.

This book was written almost eight years before "The Brothers Karamazov." Oh, if only someone had told me to read this before "The Brothers Karamazov"! The ideologies and issues raised in it are an unparalleled introduction to "The Brothers Karamazov." I suggest you read this book before that. In this way, some parts of "The Brothers Karamazov," especially the religious parts, which may seem a bit confusing, will be decoded.
The two main themes of the book are the problem of the absolute existence of good and the non-existence of absolute good (faith and unbelief, but not in the superficial sense that we know) and self-destruction.
The characters in the book are unique. The book is full of characters and seemingly scattered stories. You can't find the first character of the book with a very strong and powerful paragraph because the existence of people doesn't matter at all. The main character and the real hero of the book is Russia, which the people who have brought its filth and corruption into their bodies must sacrifice and drown in the sea so that the purified Russia can rise up against absolute good and be reborn. (Quoted from the book) (The book starts with this passage from the Gospel: "And there was a great herd of swine feeding on the mountain, and they besought Jesus that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what was done. And they came to Jesus, and saw 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.")
Interestingly, one chapter of the book was censored by the writer Mikhail Katkov at the time of its publication. Dostoyevsky tried very hard to keep this chapter (in the chapter "Tikhon") but was not successful. But after his death, in the new editions, this chapter was added to the book. This chapter is about Stavrogin's vision with a priest named Tikhon and his confession of molesting a little girl and being a witness to her suicide by a relative and the continuation of the story. Dostoyevsky was right that this chapter was very necessary for the analysis of Nikolay Stavrogin's character, and this chapter is an amazing and unparalleled introduction to the first scene of the Karamazov family's meeting with Father Zosima and Tikhon. How similar are the youths of Father Zosima in "The Brothers Karamazov"!
If I also write about the religious and political ideologies raised in the book, it will be very long. So I leave them to my friends and in the following, I will bring some parts of the book:
- A theologian and atheist, whether you like it or not, on the last brink that leads to complete faith (whether you go beyond this brink or not is another matter). Now that a person has no faith at all, except for a terrible and unpleasant fear, and this rarely happens...
- Man is unhappy because he does not know that he is happy. Only for this reason and nothing else. This is the essence of the matter. If someone pays attention to this point, he will be happy. Everything is good and right. I understood this point by chance. (In another place, it also says that in addition to happiness, man also needs unhappiness to the same extent to be happy. Quoted from the text)
- Do you love children?
Kirillov (a character who intends to commit suicide) answered:
I love them.
So you love life.

I read the translation of Dr. Ali Asghar Kheirzadeh. The translation could be better.

Δαιμονισμένοι... It is a contemporary work, a work of life. Reading it constitutes a unique reading experience that every lover of literature must experience.

The absolute fictional figures are Piotr Stepanovich and Nikolay Stavrogin.

This work takes the reader on a captivating journey through a complex web of characters and events. The story unfolds with a sense of mystery and intrigue, keeping the reader engaged from beginning to end.

The vivid descriptions and well-developed characters bring the story to life, allowing the reader to immerse themselves in the world created by the author.

Whether you are a fan of classic literature or simply looking for a thought-provoking read, Δαιμονισμένοι is a must-read. It offers a unique perspective on human nature and the human condition, leaving a lasting impression on the reader.

**"The Devils" by Fyodor Dostoevsky: A Deep Dive into Religion, Society, and Identity**

The novel "The Devils" by Fyodor Dostoevsky explores profound questions about the existence of God, the future of Russia, and the nature of humanity. Despite not being a religious or philosophical treatise, it offers insights into these complex topics.

The first question, "Is God real? And if so, what happens then?"引发了小说中角色们的激烈讨论。Some characters, like Stavrogin, struggle with their faith, constantly wavering between certainty and doubt. Others, like Kirillov, take extreme positions, believing that if God does not exist, then they themselves become God.

The second question, "What can we do to raise Russia and join it to Europe?"反映了当时俄罗斯社会的动荡和变革。Dostoevsky shows how different ideological movements, such as radicalism and socialism, vied for power and influence. The character of Pyotr Stepanovich is a prime example of a radical who uses violence and manipulation to achieve his goals.

The third question, "Who is the hero of the novel?" is a thought-provoking one. Dostoevsky presents a diverse cast of characters, each with their own flaws and virtues. Stavrogin, for instance, is a complex and enigmatic figure who embodies both the best and worst of human nature.

Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky also critiques society and its institutions. He shows how people are often driven by self-interest and greed, and how social inequality can lead to conflict and revolution. The scenes of political unrest and violence add a sense of urgency and drama to the story.

In conclusion, "The Devils" is a powerful and engaging novel that offers a deep exploration of some of the most important issues of our time. Dostoevsky's masterful storytelling and complex characters make it a must-read for anyone interested in literature, philosophy, or history.

In the Name of Him

"Demons" was one of the best works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. As far as I'm concerned, "The Brothers Karamazov" is the only important work of Dostoyevsky that I haven't read yet, and I hope its translation from the original language will be published soon.

"Demons" has a significant difference from Dostoyevsky's other works. His stories usually revolve around the core of one character and mostly describe their personal and psychological states. However, in "Demons", Dostoyevsky delves into the collective soul of society and examines the overwhelming chaos within it. That's why "Demons" is a different kind of work, and perhaps for this reason, it may not be as much to the taste of Dostoyevsky's fans as his other novels. And maybe it's also because of this that in "Demons", the narrative line of the stories is not very organized and coherent, and the connection between the reader and the story is often broken.

Anyway, I liked "Demons", and I'm sorry that in today's era, the Iranian intellectual society does not have Dostoyevsky of the 19th century, who can understand and critique and examine his society accurately.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's portrayal of human nature is truly one-of-a-kind. It is so idiosyncratic that it seems impossible for anyone to surpass him in this art.

There are always those fashionable ideas that circulate, and there are human beings who lack the ability to think independently. Instead, they prefer to follow these fashions blindly. Eventually, these people are used by others and become nothing more than cat's paws.

As Dostoyevsky wrote, "And you know it all comes from that same half-bakedness, that sentimentality. They are fascinated, not by realism, but by the emotional ideal side of socialism, by the religious note in it, so to say, by the poetry of it… second-hand, of course."

These individuals are hollow men, men made of paper. But when they unite, they can turn into a disturbed wasp nest or a skein of venomous snakes.

He also noted, "Men made of paper! It all comes from flunkeyism of thought. There's hatred in it, too. They'd be the first to be terribly unhappy if Russia could be suddenly reformed, even to suit their own ideas, and became extraordinarily prosperous and happy. They'd have no one to hate then, no one to curse, nothing to find fault with. There is nothing in it but an immense animal hatred for Russia which has eaten into their organism…"

In the end, those who cannot find their place in the sun often end up trying to destroy the world.

SECONDA RECENSIONE:

Cynical, cold, nihilistic and narcissistic, as gloomy as a frigid winter night, Verchovenskij jr and Stavrogin embody the demons that the novel speaks of. If the first blurs the evil that it is steeped in to the full benefit of the communist and revolutionary cause, the second appears as a small self-contained monad that only sometimes, in its incomprehensible behaviors, seems to let a glimmer of humanity and repentance seep through. One of the darkest novels of Dostoevsky, a summary of his political and existential philosophy. An opportunity not to be missed to enter the suffering world of this great author.

PRIMA RECENSIONE:

In "The Idiot", Dostoevsky has sketched, with Miskin, the perfectly good man. In "The Demons", with Stavrogin, he seems to have created a sort of nemesis, sketching a perfectly cruel man. But if one looks beyond the appearance, one catches the thousand facets of the character, the cruel sides, the good sides, the human or unusual sides. In the end, one ends up loving Stavrogin more than Miskin, because he is less perfect, more real, more "human". In good as in evil. Miskin is an idealization (very successful). Stavrogin is concreteness, he is the reality of a man who has spent his life searching. But never succeeding...

TERZA RECENSIONE:

Good novels, even if dated, always have something new to say with each rereading. And now I wonder if the main figures of "The Demons", Piotr, Kirillow and Stravogin do not represent, in their madness, the only real and alive people in a world that seems to be made up only of clichés and stereotypes. In a world of iron rules, false morality, deception, hypocrisy, absurd conventions accepted without any criticism, their philosophies seem to be the only ones capable of restoring to man the freedom that a moralistic, conformist and oppressive society seems to have suffocated. Perhaps the "crazy" see further than what the "respectable bourgeois" can do?