Demons is undoubtedly one of the most comprehensive and complete books I have ever read. In this great novel, political, religious, theological, and acute concepts, as well as the relationship between the individual and society, are dealt with in detail. Besides, Dostoyevsky, the master, has also painted a very touching picture of 19th-century Russia.

The character portrayal, which has always been one of the master's arts, has reached its peak in the novel Demons. The characters created by Dostoyevsky, whether positive or negative, are undoubtedly unforgettable. Shatov and Kirillov are examples of these enduring characters. Especially Kirillov, whose role, with the excellent translation of Mr. Soroush Habibi and his special way of speaking, seems even more prominent. When the story reaches Kirillov and his philosophical conversations, the master's art reaches its peak. Perhaps Kirillov can be regarded as a kind of theorist. He is always thinking and reflecting, he doesn't sleep, and whenever someone steps into his solitude, Kirillov is found thinking. It's as if he has put aside his humanity and reached another understanding of the philosophy of life.

Dostoyevsky is very merciless in Demons. He eliminates everyone in such a way that the stage is prepared for the magnificent end of the book.

The book Demons is undoubtedly one of the greatest literary works in the world. Perhaps it can be said that it is even more complete compared to Dostoyevsky's other books. For example, in Demons, one can find the fully developed character of Raskolnikov (the hero of the book Crime and Punishment).

The world created by Dostoyevsky is complete and full of details, and the magnificent end of the book leaves no other way for the reader but to admire the master and, of course, a lot of thinking.

Dedicated with affection to Juan Manuel de Prada and Manuel Alfonseca. Ladies and gentlemen, as promised, if you have read my review of "Spiderlight", I will be very busy writing criticisms of books I read during the Holy Week break. So, perhaps my reading pace will suffer, and for that, I apologize to my fans.

The first thing to do is to explain the reason for the dedication. Without my admired Juan Manuel de Prada and my dear friend Manuel Alfonseca, I think I would have never dared to read this novel by Dostoyevsky. As the main character of A.J. Cronin's "The Citadel", I feel intimidated when faced with what Andrew Manson called the "Russian bugs" record. This qualifier is not an insult but rather the opposite. Russia has colossal and great writers, and I feel like a Lilliputian when facing or embarking on readings of their books. They are giants, their works are gigantean, and besides, their books tend to be very extensive, so I feel overwhelmed by reading them.

However, perhaps paradoxically, with Dostoyevsky, I most identify. I have a priceless debt to my adored Juan Manuel de Prada because it was he who urged me to read when he spoke of the extraordinarily beneficial and positive effect it had on him. That is my favorite novel of Dostoyevsky, "Crime and Punishment". It is a novel that shows the greatness of the human soul and shakes yours. I forgot to say in my criticism of "Spiderlight" that I think, as always, I wrote too much. But the best refutation of the inhuman theories of Frederich Nietzsche can be found in "Crime and Punishment", which shows man as he is, not a God but also not a sub-human being, which is what currency tends to convert him into. It shows him with his miseries and his greatness, and this is the oldest well that Dostoevsky's literature offers us, although I do think his Orthodox Christianity is more positive.

In the Russia of that time, there were two streams. The internationalist, represented by Bielinski, Pissarev, Herzen, and Tugueniev, was very influenced by Europe and dismissed the Russian tradition. But I think this dichotomy and the fight between Europe and Russia was born in the 18th century with Peter the Great when he Europeanized Russia and created Petersburg, facing his own son whom he killed (like a good part of the Czars, by the way), who defended the Slavophilia whose drivers were Nikolai Gogol, Nikolai Danilevski, Ivan Kireievski, Konstantin Aksakov, and Yuri Samarin. This was accentuated in the 19th century. With nuances, and while I initially was a pro-European Christian, like much of the Spanish intelligentsia (now that sentiment has cooled and I'm agnostic about the European issue, but I continue to support proposals like that of Don Jaime Mayor Oreja), I am more inclined towards the Slavophile line, but with nuances. Above all, what brings me closest to the Slavophile line is religiosity.

However, in non-Western countries, there has always been this struggle between preserving the country's tradition or accepting Westernization. In my opinion, Japan, I believe, was the one that knew how to do it better. It imported many things from the West, although it refused to import the best, the Catholic religion, but it knew how to be faithful to its origins. I regret the barbiturate by written means that I've given them, but this prologue is important because it goes to show the perniciousness of some theories imported from Europe. Dostoyevsky, in his youth, had been a utopian socialist, convicted and sentenced to death for trying to alleviate the miseries of the Russian people. A mock execution by firing squad was made, but his sentence was commuted to a prison in Siberia, where he discovered his Russian roots, embracing Slavism and orthodoxy.

There are authors who are a blessing for their peoples. Balzac was for France, Charles Dickens, whose novels changed the heart of England and thanks to whom England undertook a series of reforms that eased the misery of the Industrial Revolution. It is true that the young Marx embraced socialism after reading "Little Dorrit", but it is also true that what prevented Marxism in England were the works of Dickens (hence where Marxism was prepared was not in Russia). In Spain, I would not dare to say who the beneficent author could be. I could say Benito Pérez Galdós, but he does not have the religiosity of the two previous authors. I could say Jaime Balmes, Donoso Cortés, or Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo, but they are not novelists. Perhaps Pedro Antonio de Alarcón or the friend of Galdós and Menéndez Pelayo, José María Pereda. The problem is that it happens like the giant Antaeus, and as he moves away from the Cantabrian lands, he loses his strength. Miguel de Unamuno is perhaps, but with immense nuances due to his protestantizing readings and his socialist bias.

This novel by Dostoyevsky is prophetic. It is possible that if the tsars had had it in mind, they could have alleviated or mitigated part of the horrors of that monstrous revolution. Since then, Dostoyevsky announces the horror that lurks behind socialist and communist ideologies, which would have a demonic origin. The novel was based on a real case, the murder by Nechayev (a disciple of Bakunin) and his cell, Milyukov, of a dissident named Ivanov, which gave rise to the characters of the novel. Dostoyevsky recasts two novels, "The Demons" properly speaking, and "The Sinners", which are the origin of the demonic character of Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin. It is interesting to compare this figure with Lyov Nikolayevich Mishkin (the protagonist of "The Idiot"). This novel produced an extremely deep impression on me when I read it because I had a personal problem, since I thought the same as Prince Mhiskin and lived obsessed by the triangle of Nastasha Filipovna and Parfen Semionovich Rogozhin. It is curious how Dostoyevsky could read my soul so well. He thought and acted the same as Mhiskin, and also that person decided to opt for another equal to Nastasha Filipovna.
Ending with "The Idiot", I will say that the best adaptation was made by Akira Kurosawa, who eliminated the dullest elements from Dostoyevsky's novel and went to the essence of the Russian writer's novel. If the second was a transcript of Christ, succumbing to the power of evil (by the way, I take this opportunity to encourage publishers to edit in Spain the equivalent of the Japanese "Wonderful Fool" by Shusaku Endo). It could be said that Stavrogin is a corrupter, although previously there was another prior corrupter, in this case, Stepan Trofimovich Verjovenski. Without his much liberalism, his son Piotr Stepanovich Verjovenski, like Stavrogin, would not have ended up being those characters as evil or embracing the Communist creed. Although the actual event that inspired him was anarchist. Dostoyevsky anticipates 1905 and 1917 and denounces both communism and socialism. It becomes a premise that I hold, which is that the liberalism of the Western Court and Europe gives wings to these criminal iconoclasts. Without the destructive effects of the French Revolution and the pernicious effect of Lutheranism and Locke's ideas, it would have been impossible for communism to come to Russia. Here, Dostoyevsky is right.
Last year, I read the wonderful book of Patrick J. Deneen, "Why Liberalism Failed". I thought it was an extraordinary book, but it had a flaw. It is quite possible that because of his Protestant friends, he did not have the courage to put Martin Luther on the list of proponents of liberalism. But without Luther and his individualism and personal reading of the Bible, the creation of liberalism would never have been possible. It is quite possible that that was not his intention and that it was only a hatred of Rome, but in the end, it was Lutheranism that was the hotbed of liberalism. Machiavelli devised it, Luther took it to Locke, and later he and the creators of Freemasonry, Teofilo Desaguliers and Anderson in France, introduced it to the French encyclopedists. This seems to me a great success by Dostoyevsky, who makes the liberal Stepan Trofimovich Verjovenski the father and his son Piotr Stepanovich Verjovenski. In how the figure of the corruptor will be seen in other works of Dostoyevsky, such as "The Adolescent", in this case, it will be Lambert, and in "The Brothers Karamazov", in this case, the corruptor, although you will be Ivan Karamazov, who with his nihilist preaching will make his stepbrother Smersdiakov something terrible.
The hypocrisy and venality of the Russian society of the moment are beautifully described. Particularly the characters of Lembke and Yulia Mijailovna, who first praise and idolize Verjovenski and his boys and then hypocritically shock at their misdeeds after. I was terrified because it is happening with certain political parties that are emerging in the West (a particularly cruel scene of the novel is when the crowd censors and hoots at Karmazinov and Stepan Verjovenski. There he is attacking fashions and his cruelty). Initially, Spanish society welcomed a party that came to denounce the caste and that remained the same methods as Verjovenski and Stavrogin (there are counterpoints in part of the book that the Russian censorship did not admit, where Dostoyevsky becomes a stream of Nabokov). All were praises before the apparent mischief, which were not pranks but calculated evil acts. Society is a reflection of how a country is, and the appalling thing is that in the West, it seems to be on the verge of suicide, taking and tolerating the nastiest aberrations. This makes the novel greatly present now more than ever because Dostoyevsky attacks feminism, secularism begun by the Liberals, and the heirs of the demons who flag today in the West with the tolerance of the welfare society.
The scene of the niece is extraordinary. When he begins to talk about Shigaliov and says that they have 100 million people die of the neck hairs, it crept me. Because communism was responsible for the death of 120 million people, and still in places such as China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and allied with the Muslim theocracy of Venezuela. With a true rebound of these theories in Europe and the United States. Despite the false forecasts of Francis Fukuyama, we are not looking at the end of history. On the other hand, it is more alive than ever because it was not finished with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This novel should be a spur for White Russians and heirs of Slavophilia, who faced Soviet totalitarianism from heterogeneous positions such as Ana Ajmatova, Gumilov, Zamiatyn, Pavel Florensky, Boris Pasternak, Vasily Grossman, but perhaps the greatest heir to Dostoyevsky and who has also alerted against the emptiness of capitalism is Solzhenitsyn because really what these anti-Christian ideologies most fear is Christianity, which is the true remedy for the evils that the West suffers, prisoner of destructive ideologies since the end of the Middle Ages.
I have already warned you of one thing. If you are a person who has a propensity to empathize with certain characters, to identify with them and love them, you will suffer with this novel. I was very sad with the end of some like Lizabeta Nikolayevna or Ivan Shatov, who embodies the Russian Orthodox Dostoyevskiana. There are brilliant dialogues such as those held by Shatov, Stavrogin, and Verjovenski when Stavrogin tells him he is beautiful, you are my sun, and I am his worm. Never better said. It is also very good the dialogue of Piotr Verjovenski with Lembke, which shows that socialism-communism is the son of liberalism. There is a character that is greatly enhanced, and Dostoyevsky gives a very nice ending to Stepan Trofimovich (who seems to have been inspired by a real character, Granovski). Instead, Dostoyevsky is relentless with the representative of Europeanism, Karmazinov, who is inspired by the Turgenev author. Although one thing I agree with Dostoyevsky is that Bazarov is not an authentic nihilist. In this case, Dostoyevsky wins the literary duel. This novel is infinitely superior to "Fathers and Sons".
I shall briefly comment on the five-star rating. Although it has been 4.5, it is too long. There are parts that are somewhat heavy, and some characters are irritating, such as Lebiadkin or Varvara Stavroguina, and also some passages of Stepan Verjovenski are childish. Also, I have disapproved of the Anti-Catholicism of Dostoevsky, which is for me the worst of his novelistic work, also his phobia of Poland, a country for which I feel a profound affection. He arrives here to say that it is worse than communism, that we have succumbed to the temptation to second. There will be more succumbed Russia, which tends to associate religion with political power. Yet I think that Russia will have much to say in future history, but because of the message of the Virgin saying that we must evangelize it. But in general, we have a masterpiece of literature with much to say. Reading it is a classic.

“Strike me dead, the track has vanished,
Well, what now? We’ve lost the way,
Demons have bewitched our horses,
Led us in the wilds astray.\\"
A. Pushkin.

This poem by Alexander Pushkin, quoted in the epilogue, serves as an excellent preamble to the story. Devils, also known as Demons or Possessed, is Dostoevsky's platform to address the political and moral nihilism of his era. Dostoevsky witnessed the damage these concepts were inflicting on society. Political nihilism was paving the way for the destruction of the established governance structure, while moral nihilism was disrupting the established conventional behaviors and beliefs. Dostoevsky was not a prig but an anti-nihilist. He regarded nihilism as a dangerous concept that would undermine the future of Russia.

Dostoevsky was a believer yet had a liberal mindset towards atheists. However, as seen in the story, he was positively antagonistic towards nihilism. He was cynical about these moral and political nihilists, viewing them as misguided enthusiasts whose idea of reform was the destruction of established political and social institutions, along with accepted social values and principles. To Dostoevsky, they were the seeds of anarchy.

Dostoevsky employs five main characters to weave his story and make his point. We first encounter Stepan Trofimovich, a liberal idealist. Once a celebrated professor, his liberal ideas have unwittingly contributed to the growth of nihilism among his younger audiences. His liberal ideas take root in both his son, Pyotr, and Nikolai Stavrogin, the son of his benefactress. Stepan plays a significant role in the story, both visibly and invisibly. His liberal ideas are put to the test of time, and Dostoevsky shows that the aged Stepan does not hold the same views as the young Stepan. Moreover, Dostoevsky also reveals that while both Stepan’s “students,” Pyotr and Nikolai, embrace nihilistic ideals, their convictions differ.

Nikolai Stavrogin is the chosen hero of the story. He is an intelligent, handsome, strong, and fearless atheist, who, despite his outward refinement, is morally corrupt due to his lack of belief in good or evil. Dostoevsky portrays Nikolai with such psychological intensity, exposing the innermost cruelty of an intellectual. Both Pyotr Stepanovich and Ivan Shatov, two conflicting characters, are disillusioned by Nikolai. Pyotr sees him as the perfect figurehead for a socialist revolutionary movement and tries to lure him to his camp. Shatov views him as someone who can inspire Russia to a “Christian regeneration.” Dostoevsky shows that Nikolai is nothing but a hypocrite, oscillating between belief and nonbelief as it suits him. (The censored chapter “At Tikhon's,” which was fortunately included in my edition, effectively establishes this point.)

Pyotr Stepanovich is the driving force of the story. The entire action revolves around him. He is the antagonist, a shrewd man skilled in manipulating and monopolizing others to achieve his idealistic ends. Pyotr belongs to a secret society that aims to overthrow the established government and its governance structure. Their intention is to “systematically undermine the foundations, systematically destroy society and all principles; with the idea of nonplussing everyone and making hay of everything, and then, when society was tottering, sick and out of joint, cynical and skeptical though filled with an intense eagerness for self-preservation and for some guiding idea, suddenly to seize it in their hands, raising the standard of revolt and relying on a complete network of quintets, which were actively, meanwhile, gathering recruits and seeking out the weak spots which could be attacked.” In other words, the sole intention of these revolutionists is to create chaos and commit all possible evils to outrage society into a general uprising against the government and its established political and social institutions. Pyotr claims that his revolutionary movement is guided by communist values, but Dostoevsky shows that he is only a misguided fanatic and that he and his fellow revolutionists have nothing to do with socialism.

Ivan Shatov is the believer. He is Dostoevsky's voice in the story. A former nihilist himself, he has become a passionate defender of Russia's “Christian heritage.” However, Shatov painfully realizes that it is not easy to have faith and survive in a degenerating society. Shatov is the opposing force to Nikolai and Pyotr but is outmatched by them.

Dostoevsky poses many questions throughout the story. Stepan represents the 1840s liberal idealists, who were the first to oppose faith and beliefs. This baton was then taken by the nihilists two decades later, in the 1860s. They were taking further steps towards the degeneration of society. Pyotr represents the nihilists. Dostoevsky shows that this is not socialism nor progress. It is mere fanaticism and anarchy. Then Dostoevsky goes on to show that even the moral and political nihilists are divided in their convictions, as demonstrated through Nikolai and Pyotr. Nikolai's and Pyotr's ideas do not align. Their ambitions differ. Nikolai, as a landowner himself and with an influential wealthy mother behind him, has no desire for a change of governance like Pyotr. And in the midst of all this moral corruption stands those of faith, friendless and vulnerable like Shatov.

Shatov's death is caused by Pyotr. Moreover, even though Pyotr's accomplices are punished, Pyotr himself escapes. What Dostoevsky was trying to convey with these incidents cannot be fully understood. But I couldn't help but wonder if he was making a gloomy prediction for the future of Russia. It almost seems that Dostoevsky foresaw that, in the name of socialism, anarchy, which eventually turns into despotism, would establish itself, suppressing the voices of those with opposing views and replacing the Christian heritage with nihilistic idealism.

Devils is undoubtedly the most brutally written work by Dostoevsky. The intense and fiery psychological portrayal of all the characters makes the reading at times quite difficult to endure. However, what is interesting is that I was both shocked and fascinated simultaneously. Such opposite emotions can only be evoked by a masterpiece. And alongside Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, Devils is a masterpiece written by an unrivaled genius.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

4/5 stars

This was an absolute ride.

I really enjoyed certain parts of it. The plot was engaging and full of twists and turns that kept me on the edge of my seat. The characters were well-developed and had their own unique personalities and motives.

However, there were also parts that I really didn't care for. Some of the subplots felt a bit forced and didn't add much to the overall story.

But overall, I thought this was a VERY solid novel. It had a great balance of action, drama, and romance. The writing was excellent and the author did a great job of creating a vivid and immersive world.

I would definitely recommend this novel to anyone who enjoys a good story.

Come si può commentare un libro di una complessità tale come I demòni?

La critica letteraria dell’ultimo secolo ha scritto una mole di opere sulla figura del grande scrittore e sui suoi scritti.

In qualità di semplice lettrice, mi limito a parlare dei momenti più alti, nella loro tragicità, del libro. Questi momenti raffigurano, ai miei occhi, la grandezza e il genio di Dostoevskij. Il libro meriterebbe di essere letto solo per queste pagine. Essi sono rappresentati dalle due lettere scritte da Nikolaj Stavrogin, il protagonista assoluto delle vicende narrate, il demòne. Come scrivono i critici, Dostoevskij indaga “l’uomo del sottosuolo”, cattivo, crudele, perverso, irragionevole, mettendo a nudo gli istinti, i desideri, le perversioni, la corruzione. Ebbene, nelle lettere rivedo tutto quanto ciò.

La prima è la confessione di Stavrogin, il documento che lui mostra al vescovo Tichon, in cui confessa i suoi misfatti. Tuttavia, il verbo “confessa” va interpretato non nel significato cattolico di confessione unita a pentimento.

La seconda è la lettera che Nikolaj Stavrogin scrive a Dar’ja Pavlovna, per chiederle di assisterlo come “infermiera” laddove si è rifugiato.

Secondo me, in queste due lettere ci sono la complessità e la profondità dell’animo umano scandagliate, vivisezionate e analizzate al microscopio, in tutto le loro vertiginose disarmonie.

Dostoevskij è ossessionato dalla presenza del male nell’uomo. In Stavrogin, l’aspetto demoniaco e maligno emerge in tutta la sua tragica grandezza nelle forme della depravazione, abiezione, crudeltà ed infine della dissoluzione e annientamento della personalità che il male provoca nell’animo umano, fino a giungere alla morte, come sigillo del nulla.

E al termine della lettura, la domanda che mi pongo è: ma come fa Dostoevskij a conoscere così a fondo l’animo umano?

A un libro come questo, le quattro stelle vanno date “d’ufficio”, indipendentemente dai gusti personali che portano a sentire maggiori affinità con un autore piuttosto che con un altro.

La critica paragona Tolstoi ad Omero, romanziere epico, e Dostoevskij ad Eschilo ed Euripide, grandi tragici. Tuttavia, c’è la differenza che i tre greci sono vissuti in periodi diversi, mentre Tolstoi e Dostoevskij sono contemporanei e rappresentano una medesima cultura.

Personalmente, mi sento più vicina a Tolstoi, alla narrazione corale e magniloquente di Guerra e Pace, alla fine analisi introspettiva svolta in Anna Karenina. Ma non è possibile parlare di superiorità dell’uno rispetto all’altro, ma solo di complementarietà e di differenze.

E allora, accostando Dostoevskij al tragediografo ateniese come fanno i critici, ripenso ai suoi versi che possono essere avvicinati al pensiero del grande scrittore russo: “L’esistere del mondo è uno stupore infinito, ma nulla è più dell’uomo stupendo. Anche di là dal grigio mare, tra i venti tempestosi, quando s’apre a lui sul capo l’onda alta di strepiti, l’uomo passa; … fornito oltre misura di sapere, d’ingegno e d’arte, ora si volge al male, ora al bene…Ma se il male abita in lui superbo, senza patria e misero vivrà; ignoto allora sia costui alla mia casa e al mio pensiero”.

**Popular Culture: An Alphabetical Contempt**

Let's not mince words. All populist entertainment is repulsive, useless, dangerous, and witheringly anti-intellectual.

Except maybe Doctor Who. But that's hardly Beckett, is it?

I first became an intellectual snob in my late teens. I witnessed first hand the slow declension of burgeoning intellects through a routine of television, video games, and a fear of reading books.

How did I escape this declension? I learned words like declension. I started to read books. After a decade of unbridled virtual hedonism, I crushed Sonic the Hedgehog to death with The Brothers Karamazov.

It's not hard to respect difficult art and escape the self-perpetuating loops of populist cliché. You don't have to read broadsheets. You don't have to speak eloquently about anything with intellectuals. Who cares about all that bulldash, the haw-hawing in ginsenged dining rooms?

All you have to do is read, watch, listen. I spent four years thinking Green Day made the greatest music in the universe. One day, I heard some Stravinsky and burst into tears.

Does this make me a pompous girlie-man? Maybe no. Or maybe yes.

I surprised myself by tackling Dostoevsky novels and finding them relevant to my own life, psychology, etc.

So it all became clear. The only way to grow as a human being through art is to confront difficulty, to embrace difficulty, and be pleasantly surprised when that effort translates into bliss.

This isn't a homily, it's an anecdote. But I truly believe people who hide in dreary commercial art are betraying their capacity to think and improve and understand everything.

In one word, it must be said that it was a "success"!

For me, it is by no means possible to describe this book as being crowded.

It was the most complete and amazing work of Dostoyevsky that I have read to this day. I was constantly amazed and admired the author's pen. In the face of Dostoyevsky, this boredom is never repetitive and takes on a new form each time.

I still believe that the best writer who has the most perfect spatialization and characterization is Dostoyevsky. It's as if the reader himself is a part of the characters in the world of the book and is a close witness to everything that happens.

The main thing that makes me interested in Dostoyevsky is that the tiniest details also matter and everything is completely coherent and calculated.

All the characters are alive and have their own lives and fates, and during the story, attention is paid to them, and it's not just the heroine of the camping trip or the brunette in the story who is the main character.

Each character has its own literary and creative nature and follows a different pattern of behavior from other characters.

Dostoyevsky is very skillful in making the reader accept the reality of the world he has created, and this is what makes his works profound.

Dostoyevsky reveals different aspects of a subject at the same time, and the concerns of the characters penetrate the reader's mind and keep him thinking for a long time. And is there really any right or wrong, and will we come to a final conclusion?

In the end, all the events came to an end, except for love, which was not realized for anyone and was not achieved.

The end of the book has a critical reading experience, and reading it is like drinking cold water after brushing your teeth.

P.S.: In my opinion, it is better to read other works of Dostoyevsky before reading this book because maybe after this book, you won't be satisfied with his other books. In other words, get to the top little by little so that you can stay on top =)))))

Terza lettura is an important concept in various fields. It refers to the third reading or perusal of a text, document, or piece of work. This additional reading allows for a deeper understanding and analysis. During terza lettura, one can focus on details that may have been missed in the previous readings. It provides an opportunity to explore the nuances, connections, and implications within the material. By engaging in terza lettura, individuals can enhance their knowledge, gain new perspectives, and make more informed interpretations. Whether it is in literature, research, or other areas, terza lettura plays a crucial role in the learning and discovery process. It helps to uncover hidden meanings and reveals the true essence of the subject matter. So, the next time you encounter a text, consider giving it a terza lettura to unlock its full potential.

I wish I was eloquent enough so I could talk about Demons. Sadly, I am not. I severely lack the necessary intellect that would enable me to analyze it thoroughly or even say a few things worth mentioning in the proper way.

However, I will state the obvious. Demons has great and limitless philosophical value. It is not a novel to be read simply as a pastime. It demands one's full attention and capacity. Moreover, it might be necessary for one to go back several times to avoid losing grip of the plot and to truly grasp the meaning of Dosto's words. Several important matters are touched upon, such as suicide, which Camus explored even further a century later. The main theme, though, is change. A change brought about by persons possessed by demons, and this change is the projection of their own demonized selves.

Another aspect worth mentioning is its darkness. What I find impressive is that it doesn't need to label itself as dark. It doesn't shout it out nor does it let its darkness overshadow its aforementioned philosophical value. It simply is dark, not in the way a typical novel is, but rather in the way life can be.

Last but not least, the chapter that was censored and left out is of great importance to the story and truly unique for its time. I would say that it sheds light on the story's point and alone justifies the title. It baffles me why it is included merely as an appendix nowadays instead of where it rightfully belongs.

It is one of the books that every reader should read eventually. One of those books that justify the statement that literature can help elevate the spirit and offer enlightenment. A true masterpiece.

If you have brought forward the hero and have exalted him with such joy and pride and raised him to the sky, it is only so that it is easier to cut off his head and more difficult to conceive an idea in the head.

"Demons", one of the other masterpieces of the great Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, can be regarded as a different book from his other works. "Demons" is considered the most political book of Dostoyevsky. The story of this book, which is a real tragedy, Dostoyevsky wrote based on what he heard from his brother who knew about the incident. "Demons" is about a group of revolutionary people who stop at no crime to achieve their dreams and have no fear of killing to achieve their goals. It can be said that the moral problem raised in the book "Crime and Punishment" has here turned into a moral-political problem. The demons are full of things that made him be called the prophet of the Russian Revolution and are full of prophecies against Soviet communism.

In "The Idiot", Dostoyevsky wanted to present an ideal picture of how to live, but in "Demons" he does the opposite. He shows us some of the worst ways of using our freedoms. Many characters in this novel have crazy beliefs and act on them and leave many corpses behind them. Dostoyevsky was worried about the dangerous times in which he lived. Dostoyevsky expresses most of his views through the character Shatov. He is opposed to the Russian Catholic Church which, in his opinion, tries to create a god from the government, and he is also a critic of socialism which, by trying to organize society solely based on the principles of science and reason, denies God. In this novel, he reveals to us what he fears most and what are the worst possible ways that in his imagination people can use their freedoms.

Dostoyevsky knows man as a product of historical, social, political, cultural, economic, etc. developments in every era, and without considering the effects of these external factors, it is not possible to obtain a deep and accurate picture of the character, and consequently of the conflict of characters which is the generator of society. In this way, the works of Dostoyevsky, especially "Demons" which is his most political work, turn into a multi-faceted crystal that one must look at from all sides to understand. This is why "Demons", although it is harder to read than his other books and goes deeper, is clearly a deeper novel and its power to make the reader think and be amazed is astonishing.

This is perhaps the most difficult, grim, violent, and tragic work by Dostoevsky that I have read so far. And I have read a great deal of Dostoevsky in my life. Despite "Demons" being a harrowing read at times, I was impressed with this novel in several ways. I can summarize it in five points.

Firstly, it is the kind of book that makes you think, abundant in moral arguments, logical paradoxes, and verbal fights. Secondly, the plot is very engaging and flows smoothly. Thirdly, the psychological study of its characters is extremely well done. Fourthly, the philosophical aspect of the book is quite captivating. Finally, the social, ideological, and political satire is brilliant.

However, this was not an easy read. I had to do some research and reading to understand many of its political and ideological references. I'm still not sure I understand them all, but I think I managed to get a good grasp on things. It helps if you are familiar with the political climate of 19th-century Russia, although you don't necessarily need to dive deep into Russian history to read this book. Some aspects of this novel cannot be fully understood without knowing at least the basic facts about the revolutions and ideologies of the time, such as the arrival of nihilism, atheism, and socialism.

When I say that this novel is tragic, I truly mean it. It is filled with violence, abuse, madness, and unrest, both physical and verbal. There are quite graphic descriptions of suicides and murders. Moreover, there is a lot of physical, psychological, and verbal abuse and violence. One chapter, originally censored, focuses on the abuse of a child, and it is absolutely sickening to read. The presence of murders and suicides definitely makes it a dark read. There is a definite note of tragedy to "Demons," at times so pronounced that it made me think of Shakespeare's "Hamlet." The blood is dripping from the pages of this novel, but it is never violence for violence's sake. There is a reason for all of it. "Demons" is, in some ways, an allegory and a warning against a violent revolution. In his youth, Dostoevsky was a rebel. In his older and perhaps wiser years, he realized the danger that lies in violent revolutions and ideologies. Quite possibly, "Demons" is a book that Dostoevsky wrote to warn of the dangers of violent revolutionary movements and the sociopaths who are drawn to the violence and power present in these movements. The violence in this novel is out in the open, but it reflects reality. Indeed, this novel was based on real-life events and murders. Dostoevsky, like much of the Russian public of the time, followed these public trials for political murders. The writer then went on to write this novel and infused it with his own signature style - a philosophical study of its characters. That is how this unique novel came to be - a book that is wonderfully philosophical and satirically political at the same time.

Why is "Demons" (for me personally) the most tragic of all Dostoevsky's novels? If "Demons" can be compared to a tragedy, it is still very much a novel. If you can imagine a tragedy taking the form of a philosophical novel set in 19th-century Russia and written by Dostoevsky, then you can imagine this novel. Reflecting a turbulent era in European history, "Demons" is one of the darkest and grimmest novels I have ever read. Even if there is a bit of humor in it, it mostly takes the form of irony, cynicism, and satire. There are almost no positive personalities in this novel. Those characters that could be described as positive (or at least well-meaning) are often mentally ill or passive and unable to help either themselves or others. In this sense, "Demons" is different from other Dostoevsky novels. "Crime and Punishment" has its dark and pessimistic moments, as does "The Brothers Karamazov," but this novel tops them both in terms of tragedy. "The Idiot" is quite tragic in many ways and distinctly cruel towards some of its characters, but there is still hope in it. In contrast, "Demons" shows no mercy to any of its characters. This novel tops all of Dostoevsky's works with its grimness, pessimism, and tragedy. I think it's no spoiler to say that Dostoevsky's novels don't end with "they lived happily ever after." You do expect a certain amount of pessimism, realism, and naturalism from any writer belonging to the literary movement known as realism. Nevertheless, some of Dostoevsky's works are filled with hope, and some of his characters find redemption. Not so much in this one. "Demons" is a deeply depressive and tragic work. For most (if not all) characters, there is no redemption and no consolation.

Is "Demons" still a relevant book? There are many philosophical passages in this novel, and the political questions it raises remain relevant. Moreover, spirituality is one of the central topics in this book. Dostoevsky admitted to being tormented by the question of whether God exists, and so are many of his characters. They often feel a conflict between their beliefs and feelings. I think this is something we can all relate to. In many ways, "Demons" remains a relevant work. This novel is an intelligent and inspired piece of writing that has proved to be uncannily true in its predictions. You might even go so far as to call "Demons" prophetic. It certainly predicted the violent revolutions and the rise of socialism in Russia. Certainly, this is a book that has a lot to offer to its reader.

You can read my full review by following the link below:
https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2...

In the beginning, I want to mention two points that you need to know before reading the book.

First, one of the chapters of the book (which is also one of the best chapters) is not in its original position and has come as an appendix at the end of the book. Make sure you read the chapter in its original position (which is in the middle of the book) because the columns of paragraphs are about the personality analysis of the first person in the story.

Second, unlike the book "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, this story is about a hundred pages long when it gets on the train, which is also a bit tiring. Devils are like a spark that seems simple and harmless at first, but the further it goes, the bigger its fire and the more the house burns until at the end of the story, everything is in ashes. So be a little patient.

Well, let's get to the main point.

Perhaps the best summary that can be written of the story of the book is the one that Dostoyevsky has taken from the Gospel on the first page.

And there were many demons near the herd of swine that were feeding on the mountainside. They begged him to let them enter the swine. So he gave them permission. Suddenly the demons came out of the man and went into the swine. The herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned. When the swineherds saw what had happened, they ran off and reported it in the town and countryside. Then the people went out to see what had happened. They came to Jesus and saw the man who had been possessed by the demons sitting at Jesus' feet, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. Those who had seen it told the people how the demon-possessed man had been cured. (Luke 8)

Turning this short story into a story in which politics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, religion, ethics, and art each appear in their most beautiful form is like bringing a picture to life and living for years within that world. And this is the art of Dostoyevsky.

Dostoyevsky and George Orwell

Almost all of us have read or are familiar with Orwell's books "Animal Farm" and "1984", and we know Orwell as a serious critic of socialism, but why is Dostoyevsky not known in this way (as a critic of socialism)?

Orwell's encounter with the socialist system is like that of a person who sees a house on fire from a distance, while Dostoyevsky in "The Devils" shows that he is like a person who softens his hands and fingers with the fire in that burning house that Orwell looks at from a safe distance. Also, note that Dostoyevsky sees the liberation of the devils fifty years before the event (the October Revolution). Dostoyevsky reveals the roots, but Orwell only describes the events.

The Devil and Christ

The diabolical-Christological duality among the characters in this story is无与伦比, and unlike the story of "Crime and Punishment" where most of the characters were on the side of Christ in the story, here everyone has gathered around the devil. However, the faces opposite the devil have also shone with work. Of course, it is these numerous and deep personality analyses of Dostoyevsky that have given him this lofty position.

The Touchstone

Who can deny the fact that good criticism determines the true value of a work? Really, if the criticism at the end of the book by Konstantin Mochulsky is not better than the story itself, it is definitely not less. When I read the criticism, I just understood how much I had not understood the complexity, subtleties, and deep points of the story. The criticism at the end of "Crime and Punishment" was also by the same excellent critic. Only a hundred pages of the criticism have been completely translated by Mr. Habibi (of course, it was not possible to bring it all because of the volume of the book), and a hundred thousand pages of the criticism of Dostoyevsky's works by Mochulsky have not been translated into Persian. I hope a good translator will do this favor for Persian speakers.

Finally, this poem by Pushkin is appropriate.

However much we seek, we cannot find the way.
We are lost, what is to be done?
It is the devil who has led us astray in the desert
This is the cause of our confusion.

How many of them there are, where do they rush?
Why is their voice so mournful?
Are they digging graves for their children in the earth
Or carrying off their daughters into captivity?

12th of April, 1980