I do not enjoy his writing at all. Bores me to death. Lots of details that are repetitive and downright boring.

“I was especially happy when, going to bed and covering myself with a blanket, I began, alone now, in the most complete solitude, with no people moving around and not a single sound from them, to re-create life in a different key.”

This is a huge, ambitious novel and at first I felt like I was adrift in a small boat on a vast, unfathomable ocean. Eventually, though, I got my bearings and I surrendered to the thrill and pleasure of it. In a way it is unlike any other novel by Dostoyevsky and yet it has echoes of all of them and a foreshadowing too of his last, great masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov.

These are the "notes" of Arkady Dolgoruky, writing of events that occurred one year earlier when he was just 19 years old. Writing in the first person and trying to preserve the truthfulness of his immature impressions as he sets out to meet his "accidental family", Dolgoruky is like a teenage version of the narrator in Notes From The Underground. He rebels against the socialist ideology of Russian intellectuals in the mid nineteenth century with its insistence on rationalism and the idea that people will do what is morally right simply because it is logical to act in a way that is for the greater good of society. As we all know, people are not like that. They are selfish, passionate and perverse. Dolgoruky has his own agenda. He wants to become as rich as Rothschild. But he also yearns for something more spiritual. He would like to be able to look up to his father, who is a landowner, and much of the novel is about the relationship that develops between father and son as Dolgoruky confronts his father in St Petersburg and unravels the details of his mysterious past. Dolgoruky is learning as he goes and at the end of the novel he is much wiser and more settled. So one aspect of the ambitiousness of this novel is how it seeks to convey that process of adolescent self-discovery, of bewilderment and error, through a first person narrative where the narrator has, now, in the present, a different perspective from what he had then during the events of the story. You can only properly appreciate this technical achievement of the novel when you read it for a second or third time because there is so much else going on in it.

I will not try to comment on the plot. Some people say it is melodramatic as if that's a failing. Well, maybe it is but I love melodrama and I particularly love Dostoyevsky's melodrama. The story really comes alive in the last two hundred pages as all the strands of the plot come together and build towards a sensational climax. To return to the oceanic metaphor, it is like a tidal surge that sweeps you up and hurtles you towards the shore.

This is one of Dostoyevsky's greatest gifts to humanity, works that allows us to experience the exhilaration and thrill of reading. You have to be careful not to rip the pages because you know, even while you are racing through them, that you are going to come back and read them again because the ideas are so deep and the characterisations are so fundamentally truthful.

But there are flashes of brilliance earlier in the novel too. When Dolgoruky acquires some money and starts gambling he is like the narrator of The Gambler. Of course, Dostoyevsky was a gambler too, and he brings to this section of the story first-hand knowledge of how it feels to be an addict and how you rationalise your addiction and give it, also, an aesthetic dimension, as if you are doing something beautiful. These are the ineluctable Dostoyevskian themes. Heightened sensibility, passion, addiction, and the contradictions in our natures that make us at once sublime and shameful.

I really enjoyed the conclusion of the novel too, a sort of calm reflection on events by Arkady's former tutor. It puts everything into context and is funny in a dry, novelistic sort of way. In fact there is quite a lot of dry humour in the novel. I do not usually think of Dostoyevsky as being funny. But he is clearly a very self-conscious artist and creator. None of his effects are "accidental". And occasionally he will let you glimpse the artist behind the art, his dry, self-conscious sense of humour, as he sets the events of his story into some wry perspective, using his unsuspecting and immature narrator as a tool.

But there is a real seriousness of purpose here, in the conclusion, as in the rest of the novel. The author never loses sight of the spiritual dimension. Though we may at times despise Dolgoruky, we cannot dismiss him because he is like all of us. Yes, I say that even though I am a woman and I nearly dropped the book in disgust at the way Dolgoruky talks about women. I forgive him that even though I am not a Christian.

I may not be a Christian but I certainly have room in my heart for one strange, gentle, irritable, patriotic, prejudiced, epileptic and holy Russian Orthodox believer in Christ who can do a word-perfect imitation of adolescence. God bless you, Fyodor Mikhailovich! Rest in peace.

لا أدري كيف أصف هذه الرواية، هي مذكرات لفتىٰ اسمه آركادي في العشرين من عمره، وُلِد ميلادًا بائسًا، فهو من عائلة أقنان، وابنٌ غير شرعيّ لسيدِه أندريه فيرسيلوف، وقد هجرهم أبوه الشرعيّ مذ كان طفلًا.
وقد تحمّل سيده الخطأ، فأدخله في سلك النبلاء في دراسته، فصار مثقفًا، وعاش في سبيل إرضاء ضميره بتحقيق فكرةٍ عُليا وضع قواعدها خارجًا بها عن أفكار عصره.
يُحبّ عائلته، غير أنه يجدهم يُعاملونه بغير جدية، ويراهم يقفون عقبةً في سبيل تحقيق فكرته.
في مرحلة من قصته يصير موظفًا عند شيخ من النبلاء، وتتشابك الأحداث وتبدأ القصة تصبح كأنها ملحمة.
الشخصيات رائعة، وواقعية إلى درجة كبيرة، ليس فيها شر محض، أو خير محض، يُظهر دوستويفسكي ضعفها وقوتها، ويفصل في أطباعها.
الخلاصة:
هي حديث إنسان عن حياته وأفكاره، لا يهمّك ولكنك ستحبّ الإصغاء إليه.

Munitevi di carta e penna, signori. Ma prima levatevi il cappello

L'adolescente è un romanzo estremamente complesso, che a volte, anche a causa dell'edizione nel quale l'ho letto, mi è parso un po' confuso, coerentemente con lo stile dostoevskijano. L'edizione BIT che posseggo, oggi forse introvabile, non è fatta per agevolare la lettura di questo ponderoso romanzo: le pagine sono composte da un carattere piccolo, che soprattutto per chi come me è ormai afflitto da presbiopia, rende difficoltosa la lettura, e non consente di concentrarsi appieno nel seguire lo snodarsi della storia. Ho fatto quindi una certa fatica a venirne a capo, frammentando la lettura in oltre un mese e rischiando di perdere il filo; filo che è di per sé molto sottile, anche perché l'autore affida la narrazione al protagonista, che dichiara sin dalla prima pagina di non essere un letterato e quindi di scrivere in modo disordinato e senza l'uso di “orpelli letterari”.
L'uso della prima persona è un tratto costante nella narrativa di Dostoevskij, ma qui l'autore esaspera sicuramente il dilettantismo del narratore, al fine di conseguire un risultato di realismo cronachistico che è senza dubbio uno dei tratti salienti del romanzo, ed anche come espediente per creare suspance come dirò in seguito.
La storia è quella di Arkadij Dolgorukij, ventenne figlio illegittimo di Versilov, signorotto pietroburghese con una tenuta in campagna dove ha sedotto la madre di Arkadij facendola poi sposare al “servo” Makar Dolgorukij. Arkadij ha sempre vissuto lontano dalla madre, in collegio e all'università, ed all'inizio del romanzo si trasferisce da Mosca a Pietroburgo conoscendo per la prima volta davvero i suoi parenti e le persone che li frequentano. La sua smania di riscatto nei confronti del padre naturale lo farà interferire con le complesse relazioni sociali e personali che si sviluppano tra i vari personaggi, generando situazioni ad alto contenuto drammatico: il citato dilettantismo artistico del narratore è uno strumento che l'autore utilizza con grande maestria per aumentare la suspance: molte volte infatti i fatti vengono parzialmente anticipati oppure spiegati a posteriori, creando un clima di sorpresa che disorienta. Come in altri romanzi di Dostoevskij il vero protagonista non è però il narratore, ma ancora una volta l'uomo di mezza età, in questo caso Versilov. Ho trovato molte analogie, infatti, tra Versilov e il principe Valkovsky di Umiliati e offesi, che paiono l'uno il negativo dell'altro. Entrambi sono personaggi che dire sfaccettati è dir poco: sono contraddittori, sono nella realtà profondamente diversi da come ci vengono presentati all'inizio. Valkovskij sembra generoso e altruista, mentre nella realtà si rivelerà meschino, volgare e spietato calcolatore; Versilov sembra freddo e pronto a sacrificare i sentimenti alle sue esigenze personali, in realtà si rivelerà capace di grandi slanci affettivi e patriottici. Ancora una volta l'immenso Dostoevskij riesce a darci, in un solo personaggio, un ritratto a tutto tondo delle contraddizioni in cui si dibatteva la classe dominante russa della sua epoca.
Non entro nel merito delle vicende del libro perché ci vorrebbero pagine su pagine (la breve trama reperibile su Wikipedia può aiutare ma non rende assolutamente la complessità del romanzo). Basti dire che (anche qui come sempre in Dostoevskij) alle vicende che segnano l'evoluzione del rapporto tra Arkadij e Versilov se ne affiancano molte altre, con alcuni personaggi veramente straordinari – molto russi e del tutto Dostoevskijani – quali Makar Dolgorukij, che da contadino si è trasformato in pellegrino-santone, e Lambert, oscuro ricattatore che allunga i suoi tentacoli sull'ingenuo Arkadij.
Che dire ancora? Sicuramente un affresco ovviamente straordinario dell'animo umano sullo sfondo della apparentemente cristallizzata – in realtà ribollente – società russa della metà del XIX secolo, da leggere possibilmente in altra edizione rispetto alla mia. Un consiglio comunque voglio darlo. A meno che non siate dotati di una memoria eccezionale, munitevi di carta e penna, e quando appare un personaggio annotatene nome, caratteristiche e relazioni con gli altri personaggi; può essere utile nel corso del romanzo, per evitare la domanda che mi sono a volte fatto durante la lettura: E questo chi è?

«...پس تکلیف نویسنده‌ای که نمی‌خواهد خود را به شکل تاریخی مقید کند و گرایش به زمان حال بر او غلبه دارد چیست؟ حدس زدن... و اشتباه کردن.»
.
«چنین نوشته‌هایی به هرحال نشانه‌های وفادارانه‌ای در خود دارند که از روی آن‌ها می‌توان حدس زد که در این زمانه دشوار چه چیزهایی ممکن است در قلب یک جوان خام نهفته باشد _چنین شناختی اصلا بی‌ارزش نیست زیرا از جوان‌های خام است که نسل‌ها شکل می‌گیرند.»

هل هناك من هو أفضل من دوستويفسكي في تشريح دواخل شخصياته
كنت أفكر أن ما الرابط بين ثلاثينية سورية من القرن الحادي و العشرين
و روسي في التاسعة عشرة من القرن التاسع عشر
ظاهريا لا رابط، مع أنه يبدو لي مفهوما و مألوفا أكثر من مثيلاتي في مدينتي
بالنسبة للرواية ليس من أحداث حقيقة إنما مجرد أفكار تجعلك تفكر
و تجعلك راغبا في أن تكتب عن هذه الأفكار مطولا
و هذا ما أفكر في فعله
بالمتاسبة قرأت طبعة دار ابن رشد، و في الجزء الثاني أكملوا الصفحات بقصص قصيرة للمؤلف
و القصص الموضوعة لا تستحق نجمة أو نجمتين بأحسن تقدير
و لكني ما كنت لأحتسبها، إنما النجمات كلها لرواية المراهق

اینکه در یک اثر در آن تاریخ اختلال شخصیت دو قطبی ، حقارت سرکوب شده، افکار جوانی در قالبی ادبی مطرح گردد تنها از دست استاد داستایفسکی بزرگ برمی‌آید

ENGLISH: In this novel, Dostoievsky is able to assume the mentality of an adolescent, to the point of writing in an incoherent, mixed-up way, but providing at the end all the needful information. The young man relating this story wins the readers love through his innocence (he is deceived by everybody) in spite of the fact that his (understandable) mistakes take everybody unavoidably to a fatal outcome.

On the other hand, the father of the main character is exactly the opposite, a twisted, complex character, at the edge of madness, who always acts in unexpected ways, but never loses his son's love and respect.

Not as good as "Crime and Punishment" or "The brothers Karamazov" (so my ratings must be relative), but at least as good as "The idiot."

ESPAÑOL: En esta novela, Dostoievski es capaz de asumir la mentalidad de un adolescente, hasta el punto de escribir de forma incoherente, confusa, pero aportando al final toda la información necesaria. El joven que relata esta historia se gana el cariño de los lectores por su inocencia (le engaña todo el mundo) a pesar de que sus errores (comprensibles) llevan a todos inevitablemente a un desenlace fatal.

Por otro lado, el padre del personaje principal es exactamente lo contrario, un personaje retorcido, complejo, al borde de la locura, que siempre actúa de forma inesperada, pero nunca pierde el amor y el respeto de su hijo.

No tan buena como "Crimen y castigo" o "Los hermanos Karamazov" (así que mis calificaciones deben ser relativas), pero al menos tan buena como "El idiota".

“Uneori, e foarte greu sa dibuiesti caracterul cate unui om, dar e de ajuns sa l surprinzi o singura data razand sincer si brusc si atunci caracterul lui iti apare limpede ca lumina zilei. Numai un om foarte evoluat, care a ajuns la o armonie interioara, e in stare de o veselie contagioasa, mai bine zis senina si irezistibila.”

n  "I've seen people who, at the first bucket of cold water, renounce not only their actions, but even their idea, and begin to laugh at something they considered sacred only an hour before."n

There's a ton of intense people in this book and it's easy to get caught up in all the intensity in the sense of not being able to look away from a train wreck, which is pretty standard for Dostoevsky, haha. The reader is sucked into all the scandal and family drama along with the narrator, who was previously a solitary dreamer who thought he only needed ideas instead of people but finds out otherwise.

n  ”Woe to those beings who are left only to their own powers and dreams, and with a passionate, all too premature, and almost vengeful longing for seemliness—precisely ‘vengeful.’”n

I can understand why this is one of Dostoevsky's lesser-known novels though, since although there are mentions of the big philosophical ideas throughout all his work, he only seems to touch on them here while they're explored way more in-depth in his other books. Still a good read though!

i read like mj from the spider-man trilogy: https://youtu.be/6H4iKjHSVgA


i absolutely did NOT sign up for misogyny and anti-semitism and yet unfortunately that’s all i got here