Τα 5 αστερια είναι πολύ λίγα για να περιγράψουν τους συγκλονιστικές δυνάμεις και απαραμιλλου βαθούς Δαιμονισμενους του αγαπημένου μου Ντοστογιεφσκι. Έχοντας επηρεαστεί από την πρώτη πολύκροτη πολιτική δικη που συγκλονίσει την κοινωνία της Ρωσίας στα μέσα του 19ου αιώνα, εμφανίζεται ένα ποικιλόμορφο μουσείο πλήρως αντιπροσωπευτικό των ανθρώπων της (και όχι της τότε μόνον εποχής). Ως φοντο λειτουργεί η πολιτική αναστατωση και η αφυπνιση κάποιων μερών της κοινωνίας που αναζητούν την αλλαγή διακρινομένων σε σλαβοφιλους και δυτικιστές.

Οι χαρακτήρες σύνθετοι γεμάτοι αδυναμίες, πάθη, επιθυμίες, όνειρα, ανάγκη να κατανοήσουν τον κόσμο που τους περιβάλλει, να τον αλλάξουν, να τον καταστρέψουν, να τον χτίσουν από την αρχή. Μέσα σε όλα όμως διακρίνεται ο ίδιος ο τυρανισμένος συγγραφέας ο οποίος πολεμά με τους δαιμόνες του και το παρελθόν, ρίχνει τα βέλη κατά παντός βιώνοντας πικρία και έντονη απογοήτευση. Τους χαρακτήρες που εμφανίζονται άλλοι θα τους μισήσουν, άλλοι θα τους λυπηθούν, άλλοι θα τους αγαπήσουν (ή και όλα αυτά μαζί καθώς ξεδιπλώνεται ο κάθε χαρακτήρας), όμως πάνω από όλα θα τους καταλάβεις γιατί στην ουσία μας είμαστε όλοι ίδιοι. Είμαστε όλοι άνθρωποι το ίδιο φθαρτοί και αθάνατοι μαζί.

Στα συν η πολύ προσεγμένη έκδοση από τον Ινδικτο που περιλαμβάνει πέρα από βιογραφικά στοιχεία, σημειώσεις όπου αντιλαμβανόμαστε τον συστηματικό τρόπο με τον οποίο έδινε τις εργασίες του ο Ντοστογιεφσκι, και συμπληρωματικό κεφάλαιο για έναν από τους πιο ενδιαφέροντες και σύνθετους χαρακτήρες που έπλασε ποτέ, τον Νικολαι Σταβρογκιν (ξεκάθαρα ότι πιο συγκλονιστικό έχω διαβάσει).

“All those crazy liberals haven’t got a clue.” Signed, F. Dostoyevsky

If you wonder whether it’s worth reading a 693-page monster about the world of provincial Russian liberals in the 1860s, it is. The only thing you need is a bit of patience. This novel resembles a large airplane that barely takes off at the end of the runway, but once it’s flying, you see a lot below.
At the start, you scratch your head, wondering what it is actually about. Dostoyevsky is just setting the scene, painting a picture of small-town liberals who talk the talk but generally do nothing. They continue their silly parties and pretenses, mouthing wishes that Russia would change. A completely useless, almost Oblomov-like character, Verkhovensky, has wasted 20 years of his life, sponging off a strong, socially-active woman of means, Mrs. Stavrogin. He (and she to some extent) dwells constantly on the vague, fruitless, so-called intellectual accomplishments of his younger days. They amount to nothing.
But their sons, each in their way, usher in a darker side of Russian life upon their arrival in town. One, Nikolai Stavrogin, walks on the wild side, seducing women and caring not a whit for anyone. He has dabbled in politics but is too aloof to really participate. He is an insider who has turned himself into an outsider. The other, Peter Verkhovensky, is an outsider, brought up in Europe, who wants to be an insider. He has become a contemptible radical who thinks nothing of murder for his ill-thought out plans. He pretends to have a wide circle of radical operatives, prepared to bring down the state and “off the pigs” (if I may be somewhat anachronistic here). He cares not a wit for human life, truth, or justice and lies easily. For this Trump-like character, all people were scum to be used and tossed aside.
As in most Russian novels of the 19th century, there is a wide cast of other characters. After a couple hundred pages of meandering, the story sparks to life. Secret contacts and liaisons, even a secret marriage fill the pages along with buried printing presses, murders, rapes, fires, and a totally failed party for the “all-important cause” of raising money for the governesses of the district, plus bandits, radicals, and a bewildered governor married to a pretentious woman.
A character called Shigalov declaims on p.567: “…the picture you drew…was one of Russia covered with a tight network of cells. And, of these, each cell, while proselytizing and branching out indefinitely, was to engage in subversive propaganda against the local authorities, throw the population into confusion, create scandals, promote cynicism, undermine faith in anything and everything, agitate for better living conditions, and finally, at the desired time, use fires….to plunge the country into despair and confusion.” And I thought, nothing much has changed in that giant country that stretches from Europe to Alaska. They still hang on to the same tactics.
Dostoyevsky didn’t have much use for wanna-be revolutionaries, seeing them as ineffective and essentially trying to mimic the West without the necessary cultural substance to do so. In his view they had no clue about life, their lives being full of blunders and confusion. He paints a picture of weak, confused, inept schemers talking about concepts that they hardly understood. In essence they, like some people today, wanted to “abolish the police” or “free themselves from religion or tradition” with nothing to put in their place. On page 598 he writes of: “…the obsolete liberals afraid of independence; the slaves of some rigid idea or other; the enemies of individual freedom; the senile preachers of death and decay! What do they have to offer? Senility; the golden mean; the most Philistine, petty-bourgeois mediocrity; equality based on envy; and equality without personal pride, as it is conceived by a flunky….” He certainly didn't like them, but his own ideas would not appeal much to people today, outside Russia.
The most amazing thing about this novel (besides its length) is that Dostoevsky portrays ideas and actions that much later, long after his death, became the facts of life in early Soviet Russia. He foresaw much, though he couldn’t imagine World War I and the collapse of the Russian state. He thought the “Movement” as it is called in the book would be handed over to ignorant politicians and real socialism would never arise. He was so right. “The Possessed” is one of the great novels of Russian literature if it is not the easiest to read.

A force of regularly reading Dostoevsky's books makes his narrative schemes clear to me: passionate dialogues between stubborn and dramatic characters, exchanges that are the result of scandals or that will lead to scandals in the near future; some village idiot, some depraved mind and some beggar (whether of fame, political and/or professional success, money); a dark and gloomy setting that is felt in the places, but also in the protagonists themselves, in their behaviors, in their torments, in their psychology; a dense, prolix, excessive prose.

There are then novels more religious than others, more social than others, more political than others, and "The Demons" is a decidedly political novel.

There have been some parts that I really liked, that caught my attention and held it for a good while, but there have also been many parts, I would dare say the majority, that didn't grab me, that bored me, even a bit exasperated me.

The point is that basically Dostoevsky deals with interesting themes. In "The Demons", aside from politics and revolution and religion, we can read about nihilism, suicidal thought (and not only), murders, violence, in short, the worst side of human nature, that aspect that always intrigues me a lot. My problem is precisely in the way he talks about them, indeed, in the quantity of words used to talk about them. Really too many for me.

A bit like the characters: here, contrary to some of his other books, the number of characters didn't create problems for me, strangely I didn't get confused between one name and another, but the problem is that I find them all so exaggerated, exasperated (and exasperating), so dramatic as to seem, in some points more than others, unrealistic.

However, it must be said that this was perhaps his novel that most shocked me because of the death of some. I thought that in some cases suicide wouldn't happen and I was fooled; I hoped that in some cases murder wouldn't happen and I was fooled; I hoped that in a particular case justice would be obtained and instead nothing, the worst people even escape in works of fiction, another disappointment.

In short, I can't say that "The Demons" didn't surprise me in some points, but it's all still too much for me, for what my tastes are. With Dostoevsky's works I still feel that I can say that it's not him, it's me.

The idea devoured Stavroghin, Kirillov noted...
- What do you mean, Piotr Stepanovich, which idea? Did he tell you something?
- No, I guessed it myself: If Stavroghin believes, he doesn't believe that he believes. And if he doesn't believe, he doesn't believe that he doesn't believe (Part III, VI: 2).

It is a dark novel with sometimes amusing, sometimes sensational events, populated by braggarts (Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky), impostors (Piotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky), good people (the narrator / chronicler G-V), pitiful people, innocents (Maria Timofeevna Lebyadkina, Dasha), pseudo-revolutionary nihilists, atheists, hysterics, fanatics (Shatov), delirious people (Kirillov), drunkards, swindlers (Lebyadkin), criminals (Fedka the convict), Slavophiles, Slavophobes, etc. All this "demonic" fauna revolves around Nikolai Stavroghin. The dirty, base side of the protagonist is, of course, more prominent than the bright one. He could stop the series of crimes, but he does not decide to do so: "I didn't kill them and I was against this murder, but I knew they would be killed and I didn't stop the killers. Go away from me, Liza..." (Part III, III: 2).

Despite the facts related in The Devils, the readers cannot completely dislike Stavroghin, just as no one in the town of Skvoreshniki is willing to do so.

They remember with a knowing smile the incident at the club: "One of our venerable elders of the club, Piotr Pavlovich Gaganov, an old man with certain merits in public life, had the innocent habit of adding almost to every word with great vehemence: 'Well, I'm not led by the nose!'. Well, so be it... Nikolai Vsevolodovich [Stavroghin], who was sitting somewhat apart alone and to whom no one had addressed, suddenly approaches Piotr Pavlovich and, quite unexpectedly, but with considerable force, takes him by the nose with two fingers and drags him like that through the hall for a few steps. He had no sort of resentment against Mr. Gaganov. It could be believed that it was only a schoolboyish prank, of course very condemnable..." (Part I, II: 2).

Best book I've ever read. Society seems to be on the verge of collapse, and what better way to exacerbate the situation than by introducing our angsty extremist teens. Seriously, I don't even know where to start with this book, and no words can truly do it justice. It not only reflects the chaos within society but also within each and every one of us. You're not just judging the characters; you're finding yourself in them, realizing that you're just a stone's throw away from that same abyss. The "evil" isn't some grand, sinister villain lurking in the shadows; it's intangible, seeping through the cracks like rot. It can be seen in Stavrogin, whose void is overshadowed by his charisma, and it reflects our willingness to submit to moral decay. It's the numbness that accompanies the mind when apathy becomes a means of survival.

"At the inquest our doctors absolutely and emphatically rejected all idea of insanity." Dostoevsky uncovers profound questions: youth vs older generations, what kind of tension exists? How can ideology mutate into fanaticism? Is identity what a person clings to, their own distorted mirror of self? Or is it as warped and transient as the ideologies they embrace? What about the destructive power? What does it mean to be anyone when we're just masks of our fears and fractured beliefs?

I wanted to mention that while reading it, I couldn't help but draw parallels with "Attack on Titan," especially between Eren, Pyotr, and Stavrogin. Their descent into madness isn't solely bound by political factors or "society" but rather an existential confrontation with the limits of our human autonomy. Stavrogin's madness is rooted in an internal void – a lack of meaning and purpose. It's a surrender to the collapse of their inner world under the weight of their own despair, which reminds me so much of Eren's quest for liberation that ultimately led to existential nihilism. Both Eren and Stavrogin find themselves trapped in cycles of destruction that mirror the very madness they're trying to escape, confronting the paradox of freedom.

Here is one of my favorite parts in the book:

"Having devoted my energy to studying the question of the social organization of the future society which is to replace the present one, I have come to the conclusion that all creators of social systems from ancient times to our year have been dreamers, tale-tellers, fools who contradicted themselves and understood precisely nothing of natural science or of that strange animal known as man. Plato, Rousseau, Fourier, aluminum columns - this is fit perhaps for sparrows, but not for human society. But since the future social form is necessary precisely now, when we are finally going to act, so as to stop any further thinking about it, I am suggesting my own system of world organization. Here it is! I wanted to explain my book to the gathering in the briefest possible way; but I see that I will have to add a great deal of verbal clarification, and therefore the whole explanation will take at least ten evenings, according to the number of chapters in my book. Besides that, I announce ahead of time that my system is not finished. I got entangled in my own data, and my conclusion directly contradicts the original idea from which I start. Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that apart from my solution of the social formula, there can be no other."

Personal Opinions and Preferences
a. Read the translation by Soroush Habibi. A section was removed from the book in the first printings and then added back. However, before reading, look at the end of the book and see the section that has been appended after the end of the novel. It is better to read this section in the designated place (the eighth chapter of the second part). Unfortunately, this point is not mentioned at the beginning of the book.
b. If you haven't read any of Dostoyevsky's books and want to start, it's better not to start with this book and read several other works of his first and then read this novel.
c. If you ask me that due to lack of time and other reasons, you can only read one of the two books "Crime and Punishment" and "The Devils", I would recommend "Crime and Punishment" to you. Although I also really liked "The Devils".

I know that Dostoyevsky's works are among the three or four great literary works in the world: Oedipus, War and Peace, Don Quixote, and Shakespeare's plays, which are the lofty peaks of human thought. The book "The Pledge of the Pen People". Albert Camus. Mostafa Rahimi. Essays. Page 14 of the book

Some friends are very strange. Both sides want to shed each other's blood and tear each other's flesh. They spend their entire lives in this way. But they don't dare to part from each other. It can even be said that their separation is impossible in any way. Page 20 of the book

The more noble a person is, the more visible his conscience is in the mirror of his face. Page 26 of the book

But well, the sun also has no dark spots. Page 40 of the book

But the one who does not know the people also does not know God. Know this, the less you understand your native language and the more you sever your connection with the people, to the same extent you lose your faith in your homeland and at that time you either turn away from God or become an unbeliever. Page 56 of the book

God is the very pain and horror of death. Whoever overcomes pain and fear will become God. At that time, life is new and man is new, and everything will be new. Page 161 of the book

All the angers of this world and all the tears of this world are the source of our joy. When you shed so many tears that you soak the ground under your feet to a depth of half an arshin, you will taste all the pleasures of the world at once and you will no longer see the color of sorrow. Page 202 of the book

The more gloomy a person is, or the more a nation is fallen and trampled upon, the more deeply rooted the hope of resurrection and the vision of heaven is in their hearts. Page 261 of the book

If you have brought the hero to the forefront of the stage and clothed him with this happiness and pride and sent him to heaven, it is only so that it is easier to take his head off and it is more difficult to plant an idea in his head. Page 295 of the book

I well understand why the Russian rich are flowing out like a flood and this flood is getting stronger every year. It's greed again! When a ship is about to sink, the mice feel it first and run away from it. Page 505 of the book

Calendars all lie... There is no pleasure in life according to the calendar. Page 705 of the book

Reading a book and criticizing it are two distinct stages of the growth of society, and they are also two important stages! First, people get used to reading books. Just the establishment of the habit of reading takes centuries. During this period, they treat the book carelessly and throw it into a corner with violence because they don't know it as something worthy of attention. They criticize the book when they respect it. That is, when they not only take pleasure in studying it but also give it importance. Not only our city but also Russia in general has not yet reached this stage. Europe is different. Europe has reached this stage for a long time! Page 784 of the book

I think that at this time, man should stop reproduction. Where man has reached his goal, what are children for? What does growth mean? It is said in the Bible that there will be no birth on the day of resurrection. And people will be like the angels of God. Page 801 of the book

Do you remember the story of the prophet's pitcher that an angel's wing knocked it over and he went into a pure state and toured all of heaven and talked to the angels and because he returned, he still had not had the opportunity to pour water from the pitcher? This is the same eternal harmony and purity that you are talking about. Page 801 of the book

My friends, God is a vital truth for me because he is the only being that can be loved with absolute and eternal love. Page 896 of the book

Man should know much more than he is aware of his own happiness and believe every moment that there is a place where there is perfect happiness and purity for every person and everything... The essence of the law of human existence is only that man can constantly bow his neck in submission to the great infinite. If man is deprived of the great infinite, he will no longer have a meaningful life and will perish in despair. Pages 897 and 898 of the book

Let's also say that Dostoyevsky's old enmity with Turgenev is manifested in the comical and hateful "The Great Writer" by Karmazinov. Turgenev had insulted Dostoyevsky at that time by giving the absurd nickname "The Fanatical Patriot" and "The Persian Christian" and Dostoyevsky took revenge on him with this caricature of him. "A Critique of The Devils". Page 1019 of the book

My fifth book of Dostoevsky has just been completed, and I must say, if I ever thought that Dostoevsky couldn't impress me more than he already has, I was a complete fool!!!! This guy has an uncanny ability to continuously dazzle me with his literary genius!!

Five stars?? No, 5000 wouldn't even be enough to adequately rate his work!!!!

"Demons (The Possessed)" is his most depressing and disturbing piece of work to date. It left me so emotionally drained that I may take a very long time to recover from it (maybe I will never fully recover!!). What a masterpiece this truly is!! It would literally take a lifetime to fully come to terms with all the profound ideas it presents.

This novel is often called a prophetic work about the Russian revolution, and it's truly remarkable how Dostoevsky foresaw it a full 40 years before it actually happened!! His ability to look deep into the recesses of the human mind is simply unparalleled. The more I read of his works, the more I find myself worshipping him and his brilliant mind!!

The story is set in the 1860s, during a time of great political and social unrest in Russia. Dostoevsky delves into what occurs when a person mindlessly embraces a half-formed idea and resorts to violence in an attempt to make that idea a reality. There is both a political/social aspect to this exploration and a spiritual/psychological side, both of which are equally chilling and disturbing. Nobody can execute such complex ideas in the way that Dostoevsky does. He gets right to the heart of the problem and leaves you gasping for air with his astonishing insights into the human psyche!!!

Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky is the main instigator of the chaos that grips the town. He is an atheist and a nihilist who believes that Russian society can somehow benefit from the ideas he promotes. He forms a group and gains control over them with his cunning and calculative mind. The chaos that follows is truly disturbing, and even more so is the way in which the mindless violence is carried out and the motivations of the people involved.

While Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky represents the political/social side of the narration, Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin represents the spiritual/psychological aspect. Young, handsome, and with an enigmatic demeanor that intrigues all, he has a deeply disturbed and troubled mind, a soul truly possessed by a demon. His presence is felt throughout the novel, even though he is not physically present for most of the narrative. All the other characters view him as someone greater than themselves, almost like an idol, but some characters like Shatov see him for what he truly is. The narrator's description of his physiognomy gives us a perfect picture of his true self.

Another important character is Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, who represents the liberal idealists of 1840s Russia. He is a very comical figure (I can't help but laugh at the very mention of his name), and he is the one who finally realizes the essence of the idea of "the possessed".

We follow Pyotor's political exploits and Nikolai's personal/spiritual exploits in parallel, and they seamlessly blend together at many points. All the other characters play very significant roles as well. Shatov, Kirillov, Lizaveta, Liputin, Marya, Darya, Varvara, Yulia, and many more. As always with Dostoevsky's narration, these characters lend their polyphonic voices to his profound ideas.

The final collapse of the society that is gripped by the "Demons" and also the downfall of its characters is brought out with such brilliance that it simply blows your mind away!!!

The narration is incredibly comical for a novel dealing with such deeply disturbing ideas. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate choice, but it balances the atmosphere well, giving the reader some respite yet never detracting from the amazing profoundness of those ideas.

The most interesting and shocking thing is that a chapter called "At Tikhon's" which contains Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin's confession was never included in the original book. It was rejected by the editor. However, it is now included in the appendix section of recent publications. That chapter is the most disturbing and, in my opinion, the best chapter of the entire book!!! It simply contains the essence of the idea that Dostoyevsky was trying to explore.

Dostoyevsky's way of unravelling the psychological depths of the human mind is truly breathtaking. Layer by layer, idea by idea, he opens up a million cans of worms in your mind, and as I said earlier, it would take a lifetime to come to terms with them all. The way he unsettles my mind and yet always manages to settle it back more solidly than before is simply unbelievable.

Whenever I talk about his writing, adjectives simply fail me. His is a truly amazing, beautiful mind!!!!

Bravo Dostoevsky!!!!!!!!!

At the inquest our doctors absolutely and emphatically rejected all idea of insanity.

I open with the closing lines, on the brink of exhaustion, not sure of my own state of sanity.

Reading Dostoyevsky is a bit like spending time with close family members with a diametrically opposed worldview: I love them dearly, unconditionally, but I don’t LIKE them at all.

As I am slowly working my way through Dostoyevsky’s works, starting with the whisperings of a man taking notes from the underground, moving to the murderer Raskolnikov who manages to get my sympathy even though I loathe his actions and motives, and then over to a holy fool like Myshkin, who enrages me completely with his ignorant arrogance and destructive power, I have now made the acquaintance of the Devils.

If Raskolnikov hypnotised me, and Myshkin made me curse, the Devils have a slower, yet even more powerful impact on my mental equilibrium. While I was reading the previous novels in a frenzy, without any interruptions, I had to take a prolonged break in the middle of this one. I just could not stomach the account of the rape of a child, and the subsequent “confession” of the crime by Stavrogin to a monk. The position of the monk regarding the situation was of such evil that I felt I couldn’t read on. I thought I could deal with the Russian nationalist and orthodox mindset by now, but that was too much. The girl committed suicide out of a religious panic, believing she had “killed God” by being raped.

And the representative for the church, thrilled by the confession and completely without pity for the child, tells the murderer that he will be forgiven, if only he suffers enough to please god. First of all, what kind of a god is that, who encourages suffering, even finds delight and pleasure in it, but completely ignores the victim? What if I told my child that it is acceptable to brutally assault somebody as long as I see that he suffers afterwards - that the crime is actually laudable because it gives me a welcome opportunity to watch my child suffer duly? Where is the educational police to arrest me for such parenting?

Second, the priest feels that the crime is “ridiculous” and “inelegant”, and not bloody enough to be interesting. He worries the murderer will turn into a laughing-stock if he publishes his confession. And also, the crime is far too common to raise any eyebrows.

That scene made me close the book and not re-open it for weeks. This may be Dostoyevsky, and he may be a genius, but I have a limit to what I can take in. And I am not willing to suffer to please any sadistic, patriarchal, sexually biased and oppressive god. Self-sacrifice is not a virtue in my worldview, it is a vice which generates violence - often resulting in horrible crimes committed against innocent people without connection to the fanatics who believe they are being religious heroes by promoting suffering. The characters in Dostoyevsky’s world act like immature young boys feeling neglected and drawing negative attention to themselves to be seen by the god-father figure. “Look at me, god!” they yell. “Look what I am doing! And I am doing it all for you! I want to be seen! It is all about ME! My confession is to be read publicly, so people talk about ME! And it is ME suffering, not that inelegant little girl, who was driven mad. We are not talking about her, it is MY suffering we are looking at. MY right to be seen as a hero in pain for the sake of penitence! The crime is just the necessary prerequisite to earn the right to the GREATEST penitence ever. Never mind a girl had to die…”

While taking a break, I continue to think about the novel, though, for such is his genius. And I come to the conclusion that I am trying to square a circle when I want to reconcile the evil characters and the theological idea. Isn’t religious commitment supposed to be a force for good? That was my question, and it is wrong.

Finally I realise that my premise is wrong, and that Dostoyevsky’s sincere belief works so well mainly because he believes in an evil, unfair god wanting suffering and complete submission, - a theology that isn’t intrinsically good at all (according to my worldview, which of course is personal, not universal!).

It is not good. It just is. Period. Once I have dumped my connection between ethics and religion, and accepted the reality of the characters, I can read on.

And I am happy I did. One of the most dramatic episodes in novelistic history must be the fête organised to benefit governesses in Russia - and what a spectacle it is. The Romantic poet, dramatically bidding a farcically narcissistic farewell to his audience, vowing never to write again, stumbles over people’s sense that romantic feelings and allegorical language are a thing of the past. The fête, which is planned more with the aim to celebrate the organisers than to support a good cause (much like any celebrity fundraising event for charity nowadays!) is a complete fiasco. The Devils at work!

Who are the devils?

They are a group of radical socialists, trying to impose another kind of absolute truth on a confused and explosive nation, foreshadowing the Russian Revolution and its inhumane aspects perfectly. As a document of historical processes, I found Devils to be incredibly enlightening, as it shows why Russia was incapable of transforming a patriarchal tyranny into a liberal democracy. The new ideas are propagated in the same religiously exclusive way as the old doctrine. There is one absolute truth, which all have to live by, and it will be forced upon the people by using violence. Socialist or tsarist power - the question is only which party is militarily stronger. Both have their blind followers and their holy dogma to keep people on track. In both cases, (self-)sacrifice is the motor which drives the destructive action. In both cases, the tirade in the Revelation about being spewed out by god (your chosen infallible idea!) if you are lukewarm (read: moderate and reasonable!) guides the action of fanatics who decide to be either hot (saints!) or cold (devils!) for the sake of reaching “Greatness of the Soul”.

For women, who can never be committed fanatically to anything according to Dostoyevsky’s characters, that means slavery, abuse, and oppression - either way.

For the male characters, it means a competition in a lethal show-down in the manner of Macbeth’s last scenes. Who has the greatest soul, who dies in the most visibly dramatic way? Curtain falls on the suffering women, who unfortunately have nothing to gain from that “virtue”. For “a woman is always a woman, even if she is a nun”. And that means she commits the crime of being lukewarm. Let’s spit her out!

Devils is harrowing, darkly funny, brilliantly told. It is a masterpiece. I wouldn’t have felt such brutal pain otherwise. It is recommended to all who want to understand the strange patterns of sexual, political and ritual power that charismatic men exert over dependent people - even to this day!

A tale so deeply unethical, it is a challenge to read. A worthwhile challenge though!

My favorite extended quote from Demons is as follows:

“I have dedicated my energy to the study of the question regarding the social organization of the future society that is set to replace the present one. After much deliberation, I have reached the conclusion that all the creators of social systems, from ancient times until now, have been nothing but dreamers, storytellers, and fools. They have contradicted themselves and understood precious little about natural science or that strange creature known as man. Plato, Rousseau, Fourier, aluminum columns – this may be suitable perhaps for sparrows, but not for human society. However, since the future social form is essential precisely at this moment, when we are finally going to take action in order to put an end to any further thinking about it, I am proposing my own system of world organization. Here it is! I intended to explain my book to the gathering in the most concise manner possible. But I see that I will have to provide a great deal of verbal clarification, and thus the entire explanation will take at least ten evenings, depending on the number of chapters in my book. Moreover, I announce in advance that my system is not complete. I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion directly contradicts the original idea from which I began. Starting from unlimited freedom, I end up with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that apart from my solution to the social formula, there can be no other.”

This quote offers a profound and thought-provoking perspective on the nature of social systems and the challenges faced in envisioning a better future. It forces us to question the assumptions and ideals upon which our societies are built and to consider the complex interplay between freedom and despotism.

The mystery of the appearance of a new being is truly a great and inexplicable enigma. Shahtov, in a state of incoherence, mumbled these words, stupefied and enraptured. He said, 'There were two people, and all of a sudden there’s a third being, a new spirit, whole and complete, such that no human hands could ever create; new thought and new love; it’s frightening, actually…There’s nothing greater on earth!'

Thoughts and notes, in the meantime, often get lost in the chaos of life. However, not the imprint that this masterpiece left on me, nor the truth of this observation on the miracle that is the birth of a child. The birth of a child is a phenomenon that defies explanation. It is a moment when a new life enters the world, bringing with it new possibilities and new hope. It is a moment that fills us with wonder and awe, and makes us realize the true beauty and mystery of life.

We may not always understand the mystery of life, but we can still appreciate its beauty and significance. The birth of a child is a reminder of the miracle that is life, and a call to cherish and protect it.

My YouTube channel features a review of a particular topic.

The video link provided, https://youtu.be/IaFkJOerLd0, offers viewers the opportunity to watch this in-depth review.

In the review, I cover various aspects related to the subject matter. I discuss the pros and cons, share my personal experiences, and provide valuable insights.

Whether you're interested in learning more about a specific product, service, or concept, this review on my YouTube channel is sure to provide you with the information you need.

So, head on over to the video link and check out the review for yourself. I'm confident you'll find it both informative and engaging.

Bésy (Russian: Бесы, singular Бес, bés) is the original title of one of Fyodor Dostoevsky's four masterworks, published in 1872. Demons is the title translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (1994). I read it while listening (for 29 hours!) over the past month, off and on, to another translation. Some translate the title as Devils, or The Possessed, and they all convey different connotations, of course.

The “demons,” as Pevear and Volokhonsky see it, are better suited to these purportedly “demonic” ideas - nihilism, atheism - that Dostoevsky witnessed undermining his country in the mid-nineteenth century.

Dostoevsky alludes to the episode of the Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac in the Gospel of Luke as the inspiration for his title. He wrote, "Exactly the same thing happened in our country: the devils went out of the Russian man and entered into a herd of swine... " Near the conclusion of the book, Stepan Verkhovensky, the unwitting perpetrator of unrest and chaos through his early ideas, echoes this story as a cautionary commentary on the political climate of mid-nineteenth-century Russia.

The trigger for this book came from Dostoevsky’s shock at the murder of a man by his fellow revolutionaries. It was a sensational story in all the papers. It reminded me of how the Weatherman bombing of a building in the sixties - and the killing of a man - led to some remorse about ideological violence. Some critics at the time and still now see Dostoevsky as both politically and spiritually conservative, but I think it’s a little more complicated than that. This is not a political screed, nor is it didactic. As Mikhail Bakhtin said, there is a “polyphony” of voices exploring cultural ideas in this and every Dostoevsky novel. While some characters that are admired in his books do come to faith, Dostoevsky himself was filled with anguish and doubt. A gambler, a drinker, and an epileptic given to visions, he once said he was “possessed by this idea of God he could not let go of.”

Dostoevsky had also been, as a younger man, a revolutionary thinker. He was jailed for it and was even put before a firing squad for it before he was suddenly pardoned. I’m reminded of Bob Dylan’s reflective line: “I was so much older then; I’m younger than that now.” Maybe part of Dostoevsky’s shock at the killing was informed by the sense that it could have been one of his own group that had committed this act.

So this is a long and somewhat meandering book about a fictional town descending into chaos as it becomes the focal point of an attempted revolution, orchestrated by master conspirator Pyotr Verkhovensky, who was influenced by his father’s political writings. The aristocrat Nikolai Stavrogin is the central character throughout, a nihilistic upper-class, completely unempathetic anarchist. At one point, he reveals he has sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl, Matryosha. This chapter of the book was for a long time censored as too shocking, and it is difficult to read, but it is at the heart of the nihilistic immorality Dostoevsky decries in the book.

Where’s the balance of light and dark in the book? Well, it is narrated by a secondary character, Anton Lavrentyevich G—v with Dostovesky’s characteristic philosophical insight, psychological acumen, and dark satirical humor. This is the darkest, most difficult work I have read from the master, Dostoevsky - violent and grim, born of his almost despairing concerns for his country. So there is almost no one to admire, except maybe Ivan Shatov, who represents an image of Dostoevsky’s idea of an authentically Russian culture growing out of the best of its people's inherent spirituality and goodness.

This is a masterpiece, one of four - at least - he wrote. While I prefer all of the other three, I appreciate the passion in it, the sense of tragedy, filled as it is with violence, abuse, madness (always madness in Dostoevsky) and political unrest. And humor! In a time of twenty-first-century nihilism - the embrace of conspiracy theories, the murder of children in schools, the gang killings in my own Chicago, the climate denialism as the world burns up, the attack on the US Capitol by ill-informed “leaders,” waging sexual and political power, feeding vulnerable folks with lies - I feel a sense of prophecy in this spiritual and political allegory.