Δαιμονισμένοι...Ένα έργο επίκαιρο, ένα έργο ζωής, το διάβασμά τους αποτελεί μιά μοναδική αναγνωστική εμπειρία που κάθε φίλος της λογοτεχνίας πρέπει να την βιώσει .
Ο Πιότρ Στεπάνοβιτς και ο Νικολάι Σταβρόγκιν οι απόλυτες μυθιστορηματικές φιγούρες.

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

Man, I absolutely adore Dostoevsky.
This was the right book at the right time. I think because of my youth, the themes of Devils spoke to me on a completely different level. Usually, I read Dostoevsky’s longer works split up in their parts, taking breaks in between and reading something different. But Devils had me hooked from the very first pages and I read it back to back. Its witty commentary on all kinds of social issues was refreshing as well as thought-provoking. This book was published in the 1870s and it still has something to say today. That is Dostoevsky for you!

To my mind, it is a sign of youth to be politically extreme. You rush head-first into ideas and hold on to them with a fierce conviction, and in a year, you will have dropped those ideas, will be ashamed of your old self and may be on the complete other side of the spectrum. Maybe it’s just me, but I am sure to have experienced it in this way.
And this is what you see, especially in Stavrogin’s character. He had this conversation with Shatov where he’s confronted with his old ideas and seems to recognize them only hesitatingly. It seems like he never commits to an idea wholeheartedly, he even says himself "I can never lose my reason and never believe in an idea to the extent he did. I can’t even get interested in an idea to that extent.“ Stavrogin is lukewarm. So it was hard to get a real understanding of his character.

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

Life to him seemed to be a huge burden to carry, everyone had such high expectations on him that Stavrogin felt like he couldn’t meet. Thus, he does everything in his power to disappoint and to shock. He doesn’t accept help, he wants to be seen as the monster that he is. It seems he doesn’t feel as others do, he is always stuck on the surface and never feels deeply or even earnestly.

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

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

But let’s get to the main conflict of Devils: the generational conflict. This is a topic that will always be relevant and Dostoevsky, as usual, portrays it with artistic acumen and genius.
It is the elders not taking the youth seriously, “It’s also our own idea, ours. We, we were the first to plant it, nurture it, prepare the way — what could they possibly say that was new after us? But good Lord, just look how all of it’s expressed, distorted, twisted“. Speaking a new word aloud will make it accessible to anyone. It can be distorted and abused by all the generations to come and in the end, you won’t even be able to recognize it. But this is how ideas work, their value lies in their accessibility. Ideas have to be distorted and changed to offer flexible solutions to new and old problems. But this is what the elder generation doesn’t agree with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dedicated with affection to Juan Manuel de Prada, and Manuel Alfonseca. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
Ladies and gentlemen as promised them, if you have read my review of "Spiderlight" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... & from_search = true I will be very busy writing criticisms of books I read in the Holy week break, so maybe my reading pace suffers for that I apologize to my fans. Well it's my punishment for writing criticisms so heavy and boring:-). 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, that I would have never dared to read this novel by Dostoyevsky, because as the main character of the novel by A.J. Cronin "the Citadel" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... & from_search = true I feel intimidated when I am faced with what Andrew Manson called as the "Russian bugs" record, that this qualifier is not an insult, but rather quite the opposite. Russia has colossal and great writers, and I feel like a Lilliputian when I face or abarco readings of his books. They are giants, they are giganteas, besides his books tend to be very extensive so I feel so overwhelmed by reading them, but all these "Russian bugs" perhaps paradoxically with Dostoevsky, with whom I most identify, and I have a priceless debt with my adored Juan Manuel de Prada, because it was Prada who I urge to read, when he spoke of the extraordinarily beneficial and positive effect that caused him. That for me is my favorite novel of Dostoevsky "crime and punishment" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... & from_search = true
It is a novel that shows the greatness of the human soul, and shake yours. I forgot to say in my criticism of "Spiderlight" I think, as always I wrote too, but the best refutation that may have inhuman Frederich Nietszche theories are to be found in "crime and punishment", which shows the man as it is not a God, but also as a sub-human being, which is what the currency tends to convert to man. Such, shows it as it is. With their miseries and their greatness, and this is the oldest well that offers us the literature of Dostoevsky, although I do think, the more positive their Orthodox Christianity. In the Russia of that time, there were two streams the internationalist represented by Bielinski Pissarev, Herzen, Tugueniev very influenced by Europe, and that dismissed the Russian tradition, but I think, that this dichotomy and the fight between Europe-Russia is born in the century 18th with Pedro the great, when traffic Europeanize Russia, and this creates Petesburgo, facing his own son he killed (like a good part of the Czars by the way) that defended the eslavofilia whose drivers were Nikolai Gogol https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
Nikolai Danilevski, Ivan Kireievski, Konstantin Aksakov and Yuri Samarin. This is accentuated in the 19th century. With nuances, and while I initially was a pro-European Christian, as much of the Spanish intelligentsia (now that sentiment has cooled and the European issue I'm agnostic, but I continue to support proposals like the Don Jaime Mayor Oreja one of Us) I I am more inclined with the eslavofila line, but with nuances. Above all, what makes me closest to the eslavofila line is religiosity. However, in non-Western countries there has always been this struggle between preserving the tradition of the country or accept Westernization. In my opinion Japan I believe, it was who knew how to make it better. Imported many of the things of the West, although it refuses to import the best Catholic religion, but he knew how to be faithful to its origins. I regret the barbiturate by written means that I've got them, but this prologue is important, because that goes is novel the pernicious which are some theories imported from Europe. Dostoyevsky in his youth had been conviction, and to alleviate the miseries of the utopian Socialist Russian people, but the Tsarist police captured him and sentenced him to death, a mock execution by firing squad was made, but he commuted you worthwhile a prison in Siberia, and there He discovered his Russian roots embracing the eslavismo and orthodoxy. There are authors who are a blessing for their peoples Balzac was for France https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Charles Dickens who with his novels changed the heart of England, and thanks to them England undertook a series of reforms, which eased the misery of the Industrial Revolution. It is true that the young Marx embraced socialism reading little Dorrit" but it is also quote, that which prevents the Marxism in England were the works of Dickens (hence is where Marxism and not in Russia was prepared). In Spain I would not dare to say, who is the beneficent author could tell Benito Pérez Galdós, but does not have the religiosity of the two previous authors https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... could say Jaime Balmes https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Donoso Cortés https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... or Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , but not they are novelists, perhaps Pedro Antonio de Alarcón https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... m_search=true or the friend of Galdós, and Menéndez Pelayo José María Pereda https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... the problem is that it happens as the giant Antaeus, and as it moves from the Cantabrian lands loses its strength. Miguel de Unamuno is perhaps https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... but with immense nuances due to their protestantizantes readings and their socialist bias. This novel by Dostoyevsky (novel, I read, I would like to thank the users of Goodreads, because it is certainly has been that more I like you received while reading it) is prophetic. It is possible that if the tsars had had it in mind. They were been able to alleviate or mitigate part of the horrors of that monstrous revolution. Since then Dostoyevsky announces the horror that lurks behind the Socialist and Communist, ideologies which would have a demonic origin. What has the novel was based on a real case the murder by Nechayev (disciple of Bakunin) and its cell Milyukov to a dissident named Ivanov. That you give 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 o Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin. It is interesting to compare this figure with Lyov Nikolayevich Mishkin (the protagonist of the "idiot" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... this novel produced me an extremely deep impression when I read it.) Because he 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 could Dosyevski to read my soul as 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 made it Akira Kurosawa, who eliminated the dullest elements from the novel by Dostoyevsky, and went to the essence of the novel by the Russian writer. If the second was a transcript of Christ, succumbing to the power of evil (by the way, take this opportunity to encourage publishers to editing in Spain equivalent (Japanese equivalent "Wonderful fool" by Shusaku Endo https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... ). It could be said that Stavrogin is a corrupter, although previously another prior corrupter in this case Stepan Trofimovich Verjovenski, without that much liberalism his son Piotr Stepanovich Verjovenski, as Stavrogin would have not finished being those characters as evil or embracing the Communist creed. Although the actual event that inspired him was anarchist. Dostoyevsky is anticipated to 1905 and 1917 and denounces both communism and socialism. Becomes a premise that I behave, which is the liberalism of Western Court, and European which gives wings to these criminal iconoclasts. Without the destructive effects of the French Revolution, and the pernicious effect of Lutheranism and Locke's it would have been impossible that communism came to Russia. Here Dostoevsky is right. Last year I read the wonderful book of Patrick J. Deneen "Why what failure liberalism?" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... . I thought it was an extraordinary book, but it had a flaw. It is quite possible, that because of his Protestant friends did not have value to put Martin Luther in the list of proponents of liberalism. But without Luther, and its individualism and personal reading of the Bible never would have been possible the creation of liberalism. It is quite possible, that that was not his intention, and that only a hatred to Rome, but in the end had been Lutheranism is the hotbed of liberalism. Machiavelli devised it, was Lutero who took him out to Locke, and later he, and the creators of Freemasonry Teofilo Desaguliers and Anderson in France introduced it to the French encyclopaedists. This seems to me a great success by Dostoevsky that become father to the liberal Stepan Trofimovich Verjovenski, and that his son Piotr Stepanovich Verjovenski . In how the figure of the corruptor will see her in other works of Dostoyevsky as "Adolescent" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... in this case will be Lambert, and "The Brothers Karamazov" in this case the corruptor to your though will be Iván Karamazov, than with their preaching nihilists will make his stepbrother Smersdiakov something terrible https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... . The hypocrisy and venality of the Russian society of the moment is beautifully described. Particularly the characters of Lembke, and Yulia Mijailovna, who first praised and idolize Verjovenski and his boys, for then shocked hypocritically of their misdeeds after. I was terrified, because it is happening with certain political parties, which are emerging in the West (a particularly cruel scene of the novel is when the crowd censorship and hooted to Karmazinov and Stepan Verjovenski. There he is attacking fashions, and his cruelty). Initially the Spanish society, to a party that came to denounce the caste, and that remained the same methods as Verjovenski and Stavrogin (there are counterpoints part of the book, which the Russian censorship did not admit in where Dostoyevsky becomes a strean of Nabokov https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ) all were praises before the apparent shenanigans, which weren't chiquilladas, but calculated evil acts. The society is a reflection of how is a country, and the appalling that in the West 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 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 is crept me. Because communism was responsible for the death of 120 million, and still in places such as China, Viet Nam, Korea of the North, Cuba and allied with the Muslim theocracy Venezuela. With true rebound in these theories in Europe and in the United States. Despite the false forecasts of Francis Fukuyama are not looking at the end of the story on the other hand is more alive than ever, because not be task with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. This novel should be a spur for White Russians and heirs of the eslavofilia, who faced the Soviet totalitarianism from heterogeneous positions Ana Ajmatova https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Gumilov https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Zamiatyn if your ball https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Pavel Florensky https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Boris https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Vasily Grossman Pasternak https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... but perhaps the greatest heir to Dostoyevsky, and that it has also alerted against the emptiness of capitalism is Soljenitshin https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... because really what you fear most these anti-Christian ideologies It is Christianity, which is the true remedy for the evils which suffers from West, prisoner of ideologies destructive since the end of the middle ages. Already warned you 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 undergo with this novel. I entristecí me very much with the end of some like Lizabeta Nikolayevna, or Ivan Shatov, who embodies the Russian Orthodox Dostoyevskiana. There are brilliant dialogues as those who hold Shatov, and Stavrogin, and Verjovenski when tells you Stavrogin is beautiful, you 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 socialismo-comunista is the son of liberalism. There is a character that greatly enhances, and Dostoevsky gives a very nice final Stepan Trofimovich (which seems to be, it was inspired by a real character Granovski). Instead Dostoyevsky is relentless with the representative of Europeanism with Karmazinov, who is inspired by the Turgenev author https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Although one thing I agree with Dostoevsky that Bazarov is not an authentic nihilist. In this case Dostoyevsky wins the literary duel. This novel is infinitely superior to "Fathers and sons" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... . I shall briefly comment on the five-star Although it has been in 4.5 it is too long. There are parts that are made somewhat heavy, and some characters are irritants such as Lebiadkin, or Varvara Stavroguina, and also some passages of Stepan Verjovenski are children. Also I have disapproved the Anti-Catholicism of Dostoevsky, that is for me the worst of his novelistic work, also their phobia by Poland country whereby I feel a profound affection. It 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 to religious, with political power. Yet I think, that Russia will have much to say in the future history, but because 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.

Terza lettura

დავასრულე და ნეტავ არ დამესრულებინა. უნდა შევეგუო, რომ ამ წიგნს პირველი შთაბეჭდილებებით ვეღარასოდეს წავიკითხავ.
იმდენი რაღაცის თქმა მინდა და სიტყვები ხელიდან მიცვივა, რასაც ვასწრებ ჰაერში ვიჭერ, ვუყურებ, არ მომწონს და უკან ვისვრი.
დიდი ვაი-ვაგლახით ნაწერი რევიუ კი გამოვა.

საიდან დავიწყო და სად დავასრულო? ერთი თვე ვკითხულობდი. დღეში 30 გვერდზე მეტის წაკითხვის უფლებას იშვიათად თუ ვაძლევდი თავს. თითოეულ გვერდს თითქმის ორ-ორჯერ ვუბრუნდებოდი. წინ წასვლა არ მინდოდა, ასე მეგონა, სულ რაღაცას ვტოვებდი უკან. ერთი ნაბიჯით წინ, ორით - უკან.

მთელი წელია ვწრიალებ. მთელი წელი რაღაც დიდის (რა თქმა უნდა მოცულობას არ ვგულისხმობ) წაკითხვა მინდოდა და ვერ ვბედავდი. არ მქონდა საკმარისი დრო, ჩემი თავი წიგნისთვის მიმეძღვნა და აბა, იმას როგორ გავბედავდი, ზერელედ წამეკითხა?

ვაჭიანურებ, წიგნზე ვერ ვიწყებ საუბარს. არ მინდა ჩემი აბდაუბდით შევბილწო.

ერთი თვის განმავლობაში იმდენ რაღაცაზე დამაფიქრა ამ წიგნმა, ერთბაშად მაინც ვერ მოვიგონებ ყველაფერს, მაგრამ რა ვქნა, გავბედავ და ვიტყვი, რომ დოსტოევსკი არის მწერალი, რომლის აზროვნების პროცესიც ჩემთვის სრულიად ნაცნობი, გასაგები და ლოგიკურია. მის ყველა ნაწარმოებში ვპოულობ ჩემს გონებას. ყველგან მუდამ ასე მგონია, რომ ბოლომდე მხოლოდ მე მესმის, რასაც ამბობს. ჩემთვის არც ერთი ავტორი არაა ისეთი ბუნებრივი, როგორიც დოსტოევსკია. ვერც ერთ პერსონაჟს ვერ ვუგებ ისე, როგორც დოსტოევსკისას. ვერსად ვერ ვპოულობ ჩემს თავს ისე, როგორც დოსტოევსკისთან.

ნიკოლაი სტავროგინი - საშინელი, საშიში, ამაზრზენი ადამიანი. მაშინებს რამდენად ლოგიკურია მისი ქმედებები და აზროვნება ჩემთვის. როგორც ვთქვი, ფიოდორის ყველა წიგნში ვპოულობ პერსონაჟს, რომელიც ზუსტად ასახავს ჩემს ფიქრებს. "ეშმაკნში" ასეთი სტავროგინი აღმოჩნდა. შემოსვლისთანავე ამოვიცანი. თავიც დავუკარით ერთმანეთს. ისეთი პერსონაჟია, რომ უნდა გძულდეს, სხვა პერსონაჟებსაც რომ უნდა სძულდეთ. შენივე მორალის საწინააღმდეგოდ, გიყვარდება და აღტაცებით შეჰყურებ. თითქოს, ადამიანზე მეტია, აღმერთებ, ადიდებ. ავტორიტეტია, მას ყველაფერი ეპატიება, მისგან არაფერია საკვირველი და მოსალოდნელი - ყველაფერი. ზეკაცია, განდომებს ეთაყვანო და კუდში სდიო. გაიძვერაა, მუდრეგი და ხეპრე, უსინდისო, ბილწი, წარწყმედილი, დაღუპული.
მასზე სუნთქვაშეკრული კითხულობ, თვალის ცეცებით ელოდები რას იტყვის, რას მოიმოქმედებს. რიდიც გაქვს, თავი გინდა დახარო, რადგან თვალს თვალში ვერ უსწორებ.
შენთვისაც კერპი ხდება და საკუთარ თავს უჯავრდები, იმ მდაბიო პერსონაჟებზე არაფრით უკეთესი რომ არ ხარ. ვერ გაურბიხარ მიკერძოებას. მთელი წიგნი მხოლოდ სტავროგინზე რომ ყოფილიყო, მაინც შედევრი იქნებოდა.

"ტიხონთან" საუკეთესო ნაწილია, "დიდ ინკვიზიტორს" გავუტოლებდი. ეგ თავი ყველაზე ნაცნობი იყო. მიფიქრია, რაც სტავროგინს უფიქრია. დოსტოევსკისთან თავის დასჯა და მორალური მაზოხიზმი მხოლოდ "ეშმაკნში" არ გვხვდება, მაგრამ აქ საუკეთესოდაა მოყვანილი. სულაკაურის გამოცემაში "ტიხონთან" არ ყოფილა და როგორც კი გავიგე, მეორე დღესვე გავვარდი პალიტრაში. თურმე, ეს თავი სულ, სულ ბოლოს უნდა წამეკითხა და არა - შუაში. ახლა ვხვდები რამხელა შეცდომა დავუშვი. მეტს ვერაფერს ვერ ვიტყვი ზემოხსენებულზე. წაიკითხეთ, აუცილებლად წაიკითხეთ, სასწაულია.

კირილოვი და შატოვი, ერთი მეორეზე უკეთესი პერსონაჟი. დოსტოევსკი შატოვს თავისი პირით ალაპარაკებს. კირილოვს კიდევ აშკარად დასცინის. ვარვარამ და სტეპან ვერხოვენსკიმ გამართეს, მაგრამ მათ სასიყვარულო ისტორიას ამდენი გვერდი არ უნდა დასთმობოდა. 30 გვერდს წავართმევდი და კირილოვს ან შატოვს გადავულოცავდი.

ახალგაზრდა ვერხოვენსკის პერსონაჟიც იდეალურია. სტავროგინზე რომ კითხულობ, ხვდები რომ ღმერთკაცია და ვერხოვენ��კიზე, რომ მატლია. უმაგრესია. საუკეთესოდ დაწერილი მონსტრი. თავიდან ბოლომდე უტიფარი, მოსიარულე ღვარძლი, ვერანაირ კარგს რომ ვერ მოუძებნი, ვერანაირ გამართლებას. პარაზიტი, რომელიც უნდა გასრისო. ჭიაყელა. წმინდა სიმახინჯე, ბუნებრივია, ესეც სათაყვანებელი.

კირილოვის თვითნებობა და სტავროგინის სულგრძელობა ერთი მედლის ორი მხარეა.

კარმაზინოვი ტურგენევის გაბითურებაა. კარგად კენწლა დოსტომ, საწყალი.

ესენი არიან პერსონაჟები, რომლებიც არასდროს დამავიწყდება.
ესაა ყველაზე დიდებული წიგნი, რასაც ოდესმე წავიკითხავ.

აზრი არ აქვს მეტ ლაპარაკს, სიტყვებით მაინც ვერ გადმოვცემ, რასაც განვიცდი და რაც ახლა ხდება ჩემს თავს. თავად წაიკითხეთ და ნახეთ.

ალბათ, ყველაზე არაფრის მომცემი რევიუა, რაც კი ოდესმე დამიწერია. ვინმეს წიგნზე რაიმე ინფორმაციის მიღება რომ მოუნდეს და რატომღაც ჩემი შეფასება წაიკითხოს, ვერაფერსაც ვერ გაიგებს.

თუ ვინმემ თქვენი ძვირფასი დრო ამ ბრტყელ-ბრტყელი სიტყვების კითხვაში დაკარგეთ, აქვე გიხდით ბოდიშს.

გაციებულ გულზე ვაედითებ ამ რევიუს

در همین ابتدا دو نکته ای رو که قبل از خوندن کتاب لازمه بدونید رو مطرح می کنم.

اول. اینکه یکی از فصول کتاب ( که از بهترین فصل های کتاب هم هست) سر جای خودش نیست و به عنوان ضمیمه در آخر کتاب اومده. حتما حواستون باشه که فصل رو سر جاش ( که اواسط کتاب هست) بخونید چون ستون فقرات شخصیت پردازی نفر اول داستانه.

دوم. بر عکس کتاب ابله
، این داستان تا میاد رو ریل بیفته حدود صد صفحه طول میکشه که کمی خسته کننده هم هست. شیاطین مثل جرقه ای میمونه که اولش ساده و بی خطر به نظر میرسه اما هرچه جلوتر میره آتیشش بزرگتر و خانمان سوزتر میشه تا جایی که آخر داستان همه خاکستر میشن. بنابراین کمی صبور باشید.

خب بریم سر اصل مطلب.
شاید بهترین خلاصه ای که بشه از داستان کتاب نوشت متنی است که داستایفسکی در صفحه اول از انجیل آورده.


و در آن نزدیکی گله ی گراز بسیاری بودند که در کوه می چرخیدند. پس از او خواهش نمودند که بدیشان اجازت دهد تا در آنها داخل شوند. پس ایشان را اجازت داد. ناگاه دیو ها از آن آدم بیرون شده داخل گرازان گشتند که آن گله از بلندی به دریاچه جسته خفه شدند. چون گرازبانان ماجرا را دیدند فرار کردند و در شهر و اراضی آن شهرت دادند. پس مردم بیرون آمدند تا آن واقعه را ببینند. نزد عیسی رسیدند و چون آن آدمی را که از او دیوها بیرون رفته بودند دیدند که نزد پاهای عیسی رخت پوشیده و عاقل گشته و نشسته است و آنانی که این را دیده بودند ایشان را خبر دادند که دیوانه چطور شفا یافته بود.
انجیل لوقا. باب هشتم

تبدیل شدن این حکایت کوتاه به داستانی که در آن سیاست، فلسفه، روان شناسی، جامعه شناسی، دین، اخلاق و هنر، هرکدام به زیباترین شکل خود نمایان است، مشابه زندگی بخشیدن به یک عکس و سال ها زندگی درون دنیای آن است. و این است هنر داستایفسکی.


داستایفسکی و جورج اورول

تقریبا اغلب ما دو کتاب قلعه حیوانات و 1984 اورول رو یا خوندیم یا باهاشون آشنا هستیم و اورول رو از منتقدان جدی سوسیالیسم می شناسیم، اما واقعا چرا کسی داستایفسکی رو به این عنوان(منتقد سوسیالیسم) نمی شناسه؟
مواجهه اورول با نظام سوسیالیستی مثل مواجهه کسی است که از فاصله ای دور در آتشْ سوختن خانه ای را می بیند، درحالی که داستایفسکی در شیاطین نشان داده مانند کسی است که در آن خانه ی آتش گرفته ای که اورول از دوردست نظاره اش می کند، با آتش دست و پنجه نرم می کند. همچنین توجه کنید که داستایفسکی پنجاه سال قبل از وقوع واقعه( انقلاب 19 اکتبر) آزاد شدن شیاطین را می بیند. داستایفسکی ریشه ها را بازگو می‌کند ولی اورول فقط شرح وقایع می کند.


شیطان و مسیح

دوگانگی شیطانی_مسیحایی بین شخصیت های این داستان بی نظیر است و برخلاف داستان ابله که غالب شخصیت ها سمت مسیح داستان بودند در اینجا همه دور شیطان جمع شده اند. اما با این حال چهره های مقابل شیطان هم درخشان از کار درآمده اند. البته که همین شخصیت پردازی های پر تعداد و عمیق داستایفسکی است که این جایگاه والا را به او داده.


سنگ محک

چه کسی میتونه منکر این حرف بشه که نقد خوب است که ارزش واقعی اثر را معین می‌کند؟ واقعا نقد پایان کتاب از کانستانتین ماچولسکی اگه از خود داستان بهتر نباشه قطعا کمتر نیست. به شخصه، وقتی نقد رو خوندم، تازه فهمیدم چقدر از پیچیدگی ها، ظرافت ها و نکات عمیق داستان رو درک نکرده بودم. نقد آخر ابله هم از همین منتقد فوق‌العاده بود. فقط صد حیف که نقد رو آقای حبیبی کامل نیا��رده اند ( البته قطعا به خاطر حجم کتاب امکانش هم نبود که بیارن) و صد هزار حیف که کتاب نقد داستایفسکی از ماچولسکی به فارسی ترجمه نشده. امیدوارم یه مترجم خوب، این لطف رو به فارسی زبانان بکنه.


برای خاتمه این شعر از پوشکین مناسبه.

هرچه می جوییم، راه پیدا نیست.
گم شدگانیم، چاره چیست؟
پیداست که ابلیس به صحرامان کشانده است
سرگردانی مان از این است.

چه بسیارند آنها، به کجاشان می دوانند؟
آوازشان چرا چنین غم انگیز است؟
جن بچه ای در خاک می کنند
یا افسونگری را به حجله می برند؟

1399/4/12

Ένα διαμάντι της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας μα συγχρόνως το πιο κουραστικό βιβλίο του Ντοστογιέφσκι που έχω διαβάσει, με ατελείωτους, εξαντλητικούς διαλόγους μεταξύ δυτικιστών, αθεϊστών και μηδενιστών. Άμεση ειρωνία και κριτική ιδεολογιών που ο Ντοστογιέφσκι ήθελε να πραγματοποιήσει, επιλέγοντας συνειδητά το καλλιτεχνικό κομμάτι να έρθει δεύτερο, ώστε πρωτίστως να εκφράσει έμπρακτα τη μεταμέλεια του για τη συμμετοχή του σε επαναστατικό κύκλο στα νιάτα του. Η μετάφραση εκπληκτική, με έκανε να αισθανθώ ότι τόσα χρόνια που διαβάζω Ντοστογιέφσκι ίσως και να μου δινόταν μασημένη τροφή, με μια ωραιοποιημένη εκδοχή της πρωτότυπης γλώσσας (κυρίως της σύνταξης). Ο Νικολάϊ Σταβρόγκιν, πραγματικός δαίμονας, συνιστά έναν από τους συγκλονιστικότερους μυθιστορηματικούς χαρακτήρες όλων των εποχών. ❣

به نام او

یکی از بهترین آثار فیودور داستایفسکی بود با احتساب شیاطین (جن زدگان) تنها اثر مهمی که از داستایفسکی نخوانده ام برادران کارامازوفه که آن هم امیدوارم ترجمه از زبان اصلیش به زودی زود منتشر بشه.
شیاطین با سایر کارهای داستایفسکی تفاوت عمده ای داره. داستانهای او بیشتر حول محور یک شخصیت می گرده و بیشتر ذکر حالات خصوصی و نفسانی آنهاست.
ولی داستایفسکی در شیاطین به سراغ نفس اماره جمعی میره و هیولای سربرآورده از آن رو مورد بررسی قرار میده به همین خاطر شیاطین اثر متفاوتی ست و به همین خاطر شاید کمتر از دیگر رمانهای او به مذاق داستایفسکی بازها خوش بیاید. و شاید به همین دلیل است که در شیاطین خط روایی داستانها چندان منظم و منسجم نیست و بازها ارتباط مخاطب با داستان قطع میشود.
به هر رو من شیاطین را دوست داشتم وحسرت خوردم که دراین روزگار هم جامعه ایرانی روشنفکری در قد و قواره داستایفسکی قرن نوزدهم ندارد که جامعه اش را به شکل دقیق بشناسه و نقد و بررسی کنه

This is one of the few novels by Dostoyevsky that I haven't read, and I think it's not only his most political but also his most prescient in terms of today's world—particularly the individual faced with corrupt systems, the movement toward anarchy and rebellion, and the webs of power that bind all individuals to their oppressive societies no matter how hard they strive to be free of these restrictions.

I think Demons should be read after some of Dostoyevsky's more intricately plotted and deeper psychological work, novels like Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov especially. The latter is the most fresh Dostoyevsky is my mind as I was reading through Demons, and the dialogue that the texts struck up with one another made Demons more profound, deeply affecting, and an immense achievement.

Every sentence was a joy and a small heartbreak. This will have me moving rereads of Dostoyevsky's work higher up on my to-read list, without any doubt. What an amazing book.

My rating 4.7

If you are reading Dostoevsky's books then you have to prepare to focus completely on what he is writing, you have to be concentrated because every detail he wrote is important. Like all of his other books I’ve read, it required complete attention because every character in the book is so well described and the writer drags us into their heads. Through the book “Demons” we understand how easy it is to manipulate people, and the biggest manipulator is the one who does it consciously without saying too much. In my opinion, Nikolai Starvogin is such a person, but worst of all, he manipulated himself by his actions. That is why he will do what he did at the end of the book. In this book, Dostoevsky somehow foresaw the October Revolution and some other things from the past. One man can destroy the world if he manipulates enough tiny souls to do horrible things. In the end, confused and good people like Stepan Trofimovic, and people who live in a dream known only to them, are ultimately collateral victims. In this book, Dostoevsky describes the world of the rich, for whom the poor are just a hindrance to their perfect worlds. It shows us the petty bourgeoisie in full glory, in which gossip is a normal occurrence whether true or not. It is a world frozen in some space between reality and fiction. Dostoevsky examines everything, although he is aware that he, as a writer, is drawn into a world in which nothing can change. With his writing, he leads us to the end of the book, paying close attention to every detail, every gesture, every thought that his characters convey to the reader. If you want to read Dostoevsky, be prepared for that because you have to completely surrender to him, to guide you. Read it when you are fully concentrated, if you don’t do it you will easily lose interest after the first few pages.

"انسان هر چه سیاه روزتر باشد، یا قومی هر قدر بی نواتر و زیر پاافتاده تر باشد، امید اجر اخروی و رویای بهشت در دلشان ریشه دار تر است . خاصه هنگامی که صد هزار مبلغ مذهبی مدام بر آتش این امید بدمند و منافع خود را در آن بجوید."‌
.
#جن_زدگان یا #شیاطین نوشته #فئودور_داستایوفسکی است که به زعم بسیاری از منتقدین یکی از برترین‌ آثار سیاسی تاریخ است.‌
‌
‌کتاب به روایت یک توطئه سیاسی در روسیه می‌پردازد، روایت زندگی جوانی انقلابی که عاقبت توسط هم‌ رزمان خود کشته می‌شود.‌

در این کتاب ‌از گروهی از منکرین خدا و از سوی دیگر گروهی از معتقدین به پروردگار وجود دارند که دیدی بسیار متفاوت به آینده دارند، اما تمامی آن‌ها در یک‌چیز مشترک‌اند: آن‌ها برای رسیدن به آرمان و ایدئولوژی انقلاب، حق دارند بکشند، به آتش بکشند و نابود کنند.
‌
انقلابیونی که برای رسیدن به آرمان‌های خود از هیچ جنایتی رویگردان نیستند و برای رسیدن به اهداف خود ترسی از کُشتن ندارند.‌
‌
در شیاطین افرادی را می‌بینید که به سادگی مورد سوءاستفاده قرار می‌گیرند. کسانی که عاشق وطن و خواستار جهانی بهترند اما تحت تاثیر متعصبان تندرو تبدیل به ماشین‌های کشتاری فاقد تفکر مستقل می‌شوند‌.‌



#داستایوفسکی که در میان مردم لقب پیامبر انقلاب روسیه را یدک میکشد، به شیوه‌ای دقیق پیش‌بینی کرد که اگر انقلابیون روسیه به قدرت برسند چگونه رفتار خواهند کرد.‌
‌‌
‌داستایوفسکی نگران زمانه خطرناکی بود که در آن می زیست. وی از خطرات و چالش های انقلاب صنعتی و از هم گسستگی جامعه آگاه بود و توانسته بود گرایش‌های منفی روح جامعه روسیه را درک کرده و تمام خشونت انقلاب ۱۹۱۷ و سال‌های خشونت‌آمیز رژیم کمونیستی را ده‌ها سال پیش از وقوع آن‌ها توصیف کند و این گروه در شخصیت‌های تسخیرشدگان توصیف دقیقی از رهبران حزب کمونیست شوروی را می‌بینند.


اما کتاب جن زدگان فقط در مورد انقلاب روسیه نیست بلکه داستایوفسکی با نبوغ خود به قدرت رسیدن حکومت های تمامیت خواه را در قرن بیستم که سرتاسر جهان را درنوردید پیش بینی کرد.‌
‌

اراده‌ی معطوف به قدرت انسان؛ ظرفیت روح آدمی‌زاده برای بخشیدن؛ توانایی آدمی در فریب خود و دیگران؛ عشق او به؛ تنفر او از؛ نیاز او به ایمان، اعتیادهایش، هم مقدس و هم پلشت ـ داستایفسکی همه‌ی این کیفیات روح را موجود در کنار هم و ریشه‌دار در قصه پرکلاف سردرگم سیاست، فریب و مرگ را در کتاب کنار هم قرار میدهد و با روایت داستانی خیره کننده و شخصیت پردازی نبوغ آمیز یکی از برترین کتاب های تاریخ را به رشته تحریر در می آورد.