kode adsense disini
Hot Best Seller

The Possessed

Availability: Ready to download

This is a unique Kindle edition that includes 300 endnotes, explaining all major terms, names, places, and other specific details of the Russian cultural and historical background, mentioned in the novel, and numerous French insertions in the text. The Possessed (Demons) is a testimonial of life in Imperial Russia in the late 19th century. Dostoevsky casts a critical eye o This is a unique Kindle edition that includes 300 endnotes, explaining all major terms, names, places, and other specific details of the Russian cultural and historical background, mentioned in the novel, and numerous French insertions in the text. The Possessed (Demons) is a testimonial of life in Imperial Russia in the late 19th century. Dostoevsky casts a critical eye on both the liberal idealists, portraying their ideas and ideological foundation as demonic, and the conservative establishment's ineptitude in dealing with those ideas and their social consequences. The excellent navigation tools let you use the contents of the book and its referential materials smoothly.


Compare
kode adsense disini

This is a unique Kindle edition that includes 300 endnotes, explaining all major terms, names, places, and other specific details of the Russian cultural and historical background, mentioned in the novel, and numerous French insertions in the text. The Possessed (Demons) is a testimonial of life in Imperial Russia in the late 19th century. Dostoevsky casts a critical eye o This is a unique Kindle edition that includes 300 endnotes, explaining all major terms, names, places, and other specific details of the Russian cultural and historical background, mentioned in the novel, and numerous French insertions in the text. The Possessed (Demons) is a testimonial of life in Imperial Russia in the late 19th century. Dostoevsky casts a critical eye on both the liberal idealists, portraying their ideas and ideological foundation as demonic, and the conservative establishment's ineptitude in dealing with those ideas and their social consequences. The excellent navigation tools let you use the contents of the book and its referential materials smoothly.

30 review for The Possessed

  1. 4 out of 5

    MJ Nicholls

    Popular Culture: An Alphabetical Contempt. a) Let’s not mince words. All populist entertainment is repulsive, useless, dangerous and witheringly anti-intellectual. b) Except maybe Doctor Who. But that’s hardly Beckett, is it? c) 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. d) How did I escape this declension? e) I learned words like declension. I Popular Culture: An Alphabetical Contempt. a) Let’s not mince words. All populist entertainment is repulsive, useless, dangerous and witheringly anti-intellectual. b) Except maybe Doctor Who. But that’s hardly Beckett, is it? c) 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. d) How did I escape this declension? e) 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. f) 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? g) All you have to do is read, watch, listen. h) I spent four years thinking Green Day made the greatest music in the universe. One day, I heard some Stravinsky and burst into tears. i) Does this make me a pompous girlie-man? j) No. k) Or yes. l) I surprised myself by tackling Dostoevsky novels and finding them relevant to my own life, psychology, etc. m) 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. n) 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. o) Everything.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Lisa

    “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 “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 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!

  3. 5 out of 5

    Darwin8u

    “Full freedom will come only when it makes no difference whether to live or not to live. That’s the goal for everyone.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Demons [Review in limbo] I loved the Devil(s) out of the Possessed How the Hell do I adequately review this? Once someone hits a certain genius with writing (or other forms of art), it is impossible to really grade their art. How could one grade Beethoven's great symphonies? Is Demons/Devils/the Possessed better than Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karama “Full freedom will come only when it makes no difference whether to live or not to live. That’s the goal for everyone.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Demons [Review in limbo] I loved the Devil(s) out of the Possessed How the Hell do I adequately review this? Once someone hits a certain genius with writing (or other forms of art), it is impossible to really grade their art. How could one grade Beethoven's great symphonies? Is Demons/Devils/the Possessed better than Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot? Tell me, do you prefer Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? Dostoyevsky is writing the gospels man*. Greatness is not a bolus of achievement or a gout of acclaim. It just is. Each of Dostoyevsky's big novels is a piece that is both infinitely frustrating and beautifully perfect at the same time. There was probably more to love (for me) in Brothers Karamazov, but it didn't flow as easily as Demons, but still gah, still I think I love Demons more. No, Brothers K. No. Gah! Desert Island book? Forced to pick? To HELL with you. I'm taking both or trade my food of foot or future for the second book. IT IS that good. Demons is what you get when you mix a writer who is a philosopher on par with the thinking greats + a writer who is a psychologist on par with the behavioral greats + a writer who is a preacher on par with the moral greats. Oh, and you better make damn sure this writer is hypergraphic. OK. I'm going to have to calm down. Let this review stew and seep. Think some. Sip some, and return and revise. This (this review) captures some of the energy I felt closing this book, but doesn't even come close to demanding from me what this book and the Man deserve. * Yes, I kept thinking vaguely of the Big Lebowski as I read this.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Ahmad Sharabiani

    Бесы = Demons = Devils, Fyodor Dostoyevsky Demons (Russian: Бесы, Bésy) is a novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, first published in the journal The Russian Messenger in 1871–2. It is considered one of the four masterworks written by Dostoyevsky after his return from Siberian exile, along with Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869) and The Brothers Karamazov (1880). Demons is a social and political satire, a psychological drama, and large scale tragedy. Joyce Carol Oates has described it as "Dost Бесы = Demons = Devils, Fyodor Dostoyevsky Demons (Russian: Бесы, Bésy) is a novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, first published in the journal The Russian Messenger in 1871–2. It is considered one of the four masterworks written by Dostoyevsky after his return from Siberian exile, along with Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869) and The Brothers Karamazov (1880). Demons is a social and political satire, a psychological drama, and large scale tragedy. Joyce Carol Oates has described it as "Dostoevsky's most confused and violent novel, and his most satisfactorily 'tragic' work." According to Ronald Hingley, it is Dostoyevsky's "greatest onslaught on Nihilism", and "one of humanity's most impressive achievements—perhaps even its supreme achievement—in the art of prose fiction." عنوانها: شیاطین (جن زدگان)؛ تسخیر شدگان؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دهم ماه می سال 1966 میلادی عنوان: تسخیر شدگان؛ نویسنده: فئودور میخائیلوویچ داستایوسکی؛ مترجم: علی اصغر خبره زاده؛ چاپ دوم 1343، در دو جلد، چاپ دیگر: تهران، آسیا، 1350، در دو جلد؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، نگاه، زرین، 1367، چاپ دیگر: تهران، نگاه، 1385، در 997 ص؛ چاپ نهم 1386، شابک: 9643513211؛ پاپ چهاردهم 1392؛ شابک: 9789643513214؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده 20 م عنوان: شیاطین (جن زدگان)؛ نویسنده: فئودور میخائیلوویچ داستایوسکی؛ مترجم: سروش حبیبی؛ تهران، نیلوفر، 1386، در 1019 ص؛ شابک: 9789644483349؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده 20 م موضوع اصلی داستان: یک توطئه سیاسی در یکی از شهرهاست. قهرمانان داستان موجوداتی پست و بی خیال و از خصایص بشری بی بهره و جن زده و تسخیر شده هستند. آنها زندانی یک قدرت مرموزند که آنها را به ارتکاب اعمالی وادار میکند که لیاقت و سزاواری انجام آن را ندارند. انسانهایی که عروسکهای خیمه شب بازی هستند و به فرمان شیاطین به جنب و جوش درمیآیند. داستان با یک رشته حوادث مرموز که در ظاهر با رویدادهای دیگر ارتباط ندارند پایان مییابد. ا. شربیانی

  5. 5 out of 5

    Fernando

    "Si usted supiera, Sónechka, cuánto cuesta ser escritor, es decir, ¡cargar con la suerte del escritor! Mire usted: yo estoy seguro de que si dispusiese para escribir una novela, de dos a tres años —lujo que pueden permitirse Turguéniev, Gonchárov y Tolstoi— me saldría una obra de la que se hablaría aún pasado un siglo.” Con esa carga de preocupación que en una carta Dostoievski le escribe a su sobrina, Sofía Aleksándrovna Ivánovjmir, en agosto de 1870 antes de comenzar a escribir Los Demonios nos "Si usted supiera, Sónechka, cuánto cuesta ser escritor, es decir, ¡cargar con la suerte del escritor! Mire usted: yo estoy seguro de que si dispusiese para escribir una novela, de dos a tres años —lujo que pueden permitirse Turguéniev, Gonchárov y Tolstoi— me saldría una obra de la que se hablaría aún pasado un siglo.” Con esa carga de preocupación que en una carta Dostoievski le escribe a su sobrina, Sofía Aleksándrovna Ivánovjmir, en agosto de 1870 antes de comenzar a escribir Los Demonios nos muestra al autor comprometido en escribir una novela que haga sacudir a la sociedad y a los estratos literarios de su época. ¡Cuán equivocado estaba! Si supiera la vigencia que tiene esta novela hoy en día por los temas que plantea… Sucedió exactamente lo que deseaba en ese siglo del que habla. Vaya que lo logró. Leer Los Demonios es sin ningún lugar a dudas, adentrarse en una de las más controversiales novelas que ha dado la literatura no sólo por lo que significó en sus tiempos, sino también por lo que Dostoievski logro, nada menos que anticipar el advenimiento de todos los grupos revolucionarios de la década del ’70, en el siglo siguiente y me atrevería a ir más allá: a grupos de fanatismo basado en la fe a partir sucesos como el del ataque a las Torres Gemelas, perpetrado por Al Qaeda en 2001, o yendo más allá aún, visible hoy en el grupo ISIS. Fuertemente criticado por la sociedad literaria rusa en sus tiempo, Dostoievski mantuvo su posición, indicando que escribiría su libro “con fuego”, aunque lo acusaran de retrógrado. Es que en realidad, él comenzó a pertrechar el argumento de su libro a partir de un verdadero grupo nihilista (y aquí hacemos mención del término por primera vez), comandado por el revolucionario Sergéi Necháiev que alrededor de 1849 manda a asesinar a Ivanov, uno de sus miembros más por desobedecer sus órdenes que por soplón. Este hecho ordena las ideas de Dostoievski para darle vidas a cuatro de los personajes más malvados, perversos y peligrosos que podamos encontrar en sus novelas. Y, ¿por qué digo esto? Básicamente, porque en sus otras novelas, encontramos tal vez un solo personaje que posee estas características. Podríamos citar al Príncipe Valkosvski de la novela Humillados y Ofendidos, en menor medida al pintoresco Fomá Fomich de Stepanchikovo, el problemático padre adoptivo de Arcadio Dolgoruki en El Adolescente y en cierto modo a Parfión Rogozhin en El Idiota. Pero aquí la cosa tiene otro tenor cada uno de los cuatro personajes centrales, Piotr Stepánovich Verjovenski, el líder y revolucionario y sobre quien gira la mayor parte de la historia, Nikólai Vsevolódovich Stavroguin, volátil y violento, Alexéi Nilich Kirilov, nihilista y existencialista puro y Shátov, el estudiante de ideales inalterables en búsqueda de Dios. Dostoievski maneja la novela a dos niveles. Por un lado, encontramos la conflictiva relación de Stepan Trofímovich Verjovensky (padre de Piotr Stepánovich) y Várvara Petrovna Stavroguina (madre de Nikolai Stavroguin). Ellos representan las generaciones anteriores, que aunque mayores de edad no son menos complejas en sí que las de los jóvenes. Relaciones de veinte años que a lo largo de la novela adquirirán distintas transformaciones hasta eclosionar en un final totalmente distinto al que leemos en las primeras páginas. El segundo nivel es el de los jóvenes entusiastas ya enumerados previamente. Aquí nos encontramos con distintas personalidades que chocarán entre sí y que formarán gran parte de la trama argumental dispuesta por Dostoievski quien siempre, como creador de la en sus novela polifónica según el genial teórico Mijaíl Bajtín, se hace a un costado dejando que sus héroes lleven adelante la historia cada uno con la defensa de “su” idea. El principal personaje por el que giran la mayoría de los acontecimientos es Piotr Stepanovich Verjovenski. Con poco sentido de la sensibilidad y bastante inhumano por momentos, su único motivo en la vida es lograr poner en funcionamiento "su causa", su revolución y para ello utilizará todos los recursos y que tenga a mano. Su idea de la revolución está formada hace mucho y la tiene muy estudiada. Para él es tan clara como el agua. Creo que todo el meollo de su doctrina hace eclosión en un capítulo clave, al final de la segunda parte en donde Verjovenski le expone a Stavroguin lo que persigue para poner en marcha su golpe revolucionario: "Escuche. Para empezar provocamos una revuelta —Verjovenski siguió diciendo nerviosamente, agarrando continuamente a Stavroguin de la manga izquierda—. Ya se lo he dicho: llegaremos hasta la plebe. ¿Sabe que ya tenemos una fuerza enorme? Nuestra gente no es sólo la que mata e incendia, la que emplea armas de fuego al estilo clásico o muerde a sus superiores. Ésos sólo son un estorbo. Sin obediencia, las cosas no tienen sentido para mí. Ya ve que soy un pillo y no un socialista. ¡Ja, ja! Escuche, los tengo a todos ya contados: el maestro que se ríe con los niños del Dios de ellos y de su cuna es ya de los nuestros. El abogado que defiende a un asesino educado porque éste tiene más cultura que sus víctimas y tuvo necesariamente que asesinarlas para agenciarse dinero también es de los nuestros. Los escolares que matan a un campesino por el escalofrío de matar son nuestros. Los jurados que absuelven a todo delincuente, sin distinción, son nuestros. El fiscal que tiembla en la sala de juicio porque teme no ser bastante liberal es nuestro, nuestro. Los funcionarios, los literatos, ¡oh, muchos de ellos son nuestros, muchísimos, y ni siquiera lo saben! Además, la docilidad de los escolares y de los tontos ha llegado al más alto nivel; los maestros rezuman rencor y bilis. Por todas partes vemos que la vanidad alcanza dimensiones pasmosas, los apetitos son increíbles, bestiales… ¿Se da cuenta de la cantidad de gente que vamos a atrapar con unas cuantas ideíllas fabricadas al por mayor? Cuando me fui al extranjero hacía furor Littré con su teoría de que el crimen es demencia; cuando he vuelto ya no es demencia, sino sentido común, casi un deber y, cuando menos, una noble protesta. «¿Cómo no ha de matar un hombre educado si necesita dinero?». Pero esto no es más que el principio. El Dios ruso ya se ha vendido al vodka barato. El campesinado está borracho, las madres están borrachas, los hijos borrachos, las iglesias vacías, y en los tribunales lo que uno oye es: «O una garrafa de vodka o doscientos latigazos». ¡Oh, que crezca esta generación! ¡Lo malo es que no tenemos tiempo que perder; de lo contrario habría que permitirles emborracharse aún más! ¡Ay, qué lástima que no haya proletariado! Pero lo habrá, lo habrá. Todo apunta en esa dirección…" Nikolái Stavroguin es otro personaje complejo, también ambiguo en lo que a bien y mal concierne. Una persona de costado malévolo y sin escrúpulos, a punto tal que decide casarse con María Timofeievna Lebiadkin sin entender nadie el por qué de semejante decisión, teniendo en cuenta las imposibilidades mentales de ella. Para complicar las cosas, juega a dos puntas con los sentimientos de Lizaveta Nikolaievna. Siempre saca jugo y partido de las reuniones secretas que hace el grupo nihilista y busca siempre su tajada, su oportunidad para beneficio propio. Su poco interés por la ética y la moral hará que se involucre en un acto de extrema bajeza, incluido en un capítulo que Dostoievski sacó seguramente para no tener inconvenientes, puesto que trata del abuso y la violación de Matriosha, una niña de once años. Esto será editado muchos años más tarde, tanto como un apéndice del libro como también aparte en un librito llamado "La confesión de Stávroguin" (he hecho mi reseña en goodreads para quien quiera leerla). En el mismo, entran en juego la culpa, la soberbia, Dios y su incapacidad para escapar a lo abyecto de tamaño crimen. El caso de Kirilov es uno de los más emblemáticos del libro por su gran pensamiento filosófico acerca de Dios. De su no existencia sobre todo. Recordemos que este libro es uno de los preferidos de Albert Camus, quien, en su libro "El mito de Sísifo", le dedica un capítulo especial a Kirilov utilizando como tema central el absurdo, el suicidio y Dios. Es que la cuestión de la ausencia de Dios es parte de ese nihilismo que será tomado por Friedrich Nietzsche para desarrollar su teoría filosófica sobre la "muerte de Dios" a partir de la destrucción de sus valores. En cierto modo, Kirilov "juega " a ser Dios a partir de su idea del suicidio cuando le dice al narrador de la historia, Antón Lavrentievich: ..."La vida es dolor, la vida es terror y el hombre es desdichado. Ahora todo es dolor y terror. Ahora el hombre ama a la vida porque ama el dolor y el terror, y ahí está todo el engaño. Ahora el hombre no es todavía lo que será. Habrá un hombre nuevo, feliz y orgulloso. A ese hombre le dará lo mismo vivir que no vivir; ése será el hombre nuevo. El que conquiste el dolor y el terror será por ello mismo Dios. Y el otro Dios dejará de serlo. —Entonces, según usted, ¿ese otro Dios existe? —No existe, pero es. En la piedra no hay dolor pero sí lo hay en el horror de la piedra. Dios es el dolor producido por el horror a la muerte. Quien conquiste el dolor y el horror llegará a ser Dios. Entonces habrá una vida nueva, un hombre nuevo, todo será nuevo." Finalmente, tenemos al estudiante Iván Pavlovich Shátov, quien para mí es el que más arraigados tiene sus ideales. Aún más que Verjovenski, ya que lo veo como una personaje con los pies sobre la tierra, consciente de cual es su papel dentro de lo que le toca vivir, sobre todo casi al final de la novela, a partir de un hecho que no voy a comentar para no incurrir en el spoiler, teniendo en cuenta que siempre habrá personas interesadas en leer este libro maravilloso. La esencia de Shátov es la de una hombre en constante búsqueda de Dios, teniendo en cuenta que su punto de apoyo es la total defensa del pueblo ruso. Esto queda plasmado en sus diálogos con Stéfan Trofímovich y con Nikolai Stávroguin. Extraigo un par de ellos: “A ustedes no les bastó con dar esquinazo al pueblo; ustedes lo trataron con repugnante desprecio; y sólo porque entendían por pueblo únicamente al francés, mejor dicho, el parisiense, y les daba vergüenza que el pueblo ruso no fuera como él. ¡Eso es así! ¡Y quien no tiene pueblo, no tiene Dios! Que quede claro que aquellos que se alejan de su pueblo también se alejan de la fe paterna y acaban siendo ateos o indiferentes. ¡Digo la verdad! Está demostrado. ¡Es la razón por la cual todos ustedes, y ahora todos nosotros, somos viles ateos o simple canalla depravada y escéptica!” Un pueblo de veras grande no puede resignarse a desempeñar un papel de segundo orden en la humanidad, ni siquiera de primer orden, sino sola y exclusivamente el primer papel. Cuando el pueblo pierde esa fe deja ya de ser pueblo. Pero como la verdad es una y, por lo tanto, sólo uno de los pueblos puede tener al Dios verdadero, aun si los demás tienen sus propios dioses, grandes e individuales. El único pueblo «portador de Dios» es el pueblo ruso, y…, y… ¿me tiene usted, Stavroguin, por un tonto tan prudente —de pronto se revolvió con furia— que ni siquiera sé si mis palabras de ahora son los consabidos e insulsos lugares comunes que se trasiegan en los círculos eslavófilos de Moscú, o son, por el contrario, una palabra nueva, la última palabra, la única palabra que lleva a la regeneración y la salvación y…, y…?” Es impresionante cómo Dostoievski va delineando con pinceladas la profunda y compleja psicología de cada personaje, porque no se queda atrás ya que además de estos personajes nos encontramos con la más variada fauna humana a lo largo de toda la historia. Todos ellos tienen mucho que ver a medida que uno lee el libro. Uno de ellos, el escritor Karamzínov, es en realidad una ácida y despectiva caricatura de Iván Turguéniev, quien tuvo grandes disputas con Dostoievski a partir de la diferencia de ideales que profesaban. Era una época en que la sociedad (y los intelectuales) se dividían entre los eslavófilos, quienes defendían a ultranza la idiosincrasia rusa y los occidentalistas, que se inclinaban a todas las tendencias de Europa. Dostoievski tuvo un feo cruce con Turguéniev en Baden Baden, durante su exilio, donde se acusaron mutuamente. La relación nunca fue buena. Realmente en Los Demonios ridiculiza a Turguéniev sin miramientos. Hay muchos personajes más. Además de María Timofeievna Lebiadkina, encontramos a Fedka, el presidiario, un auténtico asesino suelto por las calles de Skvoreshniki, que es donde sucede esta historia, Lizaveta Nikolaievna, que tendrá dividida su atención entre Nikolai Mavriki, su eterno enamorado, Varvara Petrovna y el propio Stávroguin, también encontramos a Daria Pavlona, el alcohólico General Lebiadkin, un ser realmente abominable, a Virguinski, el huésped del grupo nihilista junto con su esposa, Arina Projorovna, la partera, el taimado Liputin, traicionero y capaz de vender a su madre, a Liamshin, “el conocedor del pueblo”, la gobernadora Yulia Mijailovna y su marido Von Lembke y otros personajes secundarios que funcionan como satélites de los principales. Realmente, un libro impresionante, único, de una factura brillante, con giros de tuerca propios de Dostoievski, con exposición de temas que hoy siguen teniendo vigencia, personajes de costados psicológicos inesperados por momentos y una historia muy bien lograda como sólo él podía crear. Luego de haber leído absolutamente la totalidad de sus cuentos, La Casa de los Muertos y todas las novelas, dejo para lo último, el libro que casualmente escribió al final de su vida y que con seguridad fue, es y será el más glorioso de su obra y de la literatura universal: Los Hermanos Karamazov.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Henry Avila

    Winds of change are finally sweeping Czarist Russia , in the 1860's. Ideas good or bad , arrive too, they have been around for decades in the rest of Europe, this land is no longer isolated ... Socialism is the new fad for the intellectuals. The serfs have been freed by Alexander the Second, courts democratized, the death penalty seldom carried out, people can speak and write freely, up to a point. There is still Siberia for those who go over the line a little. And all the new railroads, will ge Winds of change are finally sweeping Czarist Russia , in the 1860's. Ideas good or bad , arrive too, they have been around for decades in the rest of Europe, this land is no longer isolated ... Socialism is the new fad for the intellectuals. The serfs have been freed by Alexander the Second, courts democratized, the death penalty seldom carried out, people can speak and write freely, up to a point. There is still Siberia for those who go over the line a little. And all the new railroads, will get you to it, that cold, desolate territory, very quickly. In a provincial town where nothing ever happens, a new Governor has been appointed. Andrei Antonovich von Lembke, yes there are a lot of intelligent Germans in the country, to modernize Imperial Russia. Lembke is a good man and wants to help the Russians in his province. But a weak person and his wife, Yulia, is the power behind the throne. She is greatly influenced by Pyotr Verkhovensky , ( some say controlled by him), the secret leader of a group of Nihilists, they believe the bizarre notion, you have to destroy everything, before you can rebuild the nation. Pyotr is the estranged son of Stepan Verkhovensky, a lazy scholar, who sponges off the wealthy widow of a general, Varvara Petrovna Stavrogin. She's the head of the local high society, what there is here, and has a wild son, Nikolai, the main character in the book, who gets involved in deadly duels, and his best friend is Pyotr Verkhovensky, it's a small town. Nikolai has many adventures with women and violence, travels the world, Greece, Germany, France, Switzerland, Egypt and even Iceland, but can never be happy, his conscience will not permit that. Nikolai, is not comfortable joining the nihilists, and Pyotr is afraid of him. Strange events begin in this quiet town, a big rise in transgressions , and newspapers urging revolution, are being found. Fedka, an escaped convict, and former serf, goes on a crime spree, imagine murders and robberies, in this place ! The police can't capture him, why ? Crazy rumors flow , like a flooding river. Yulia, has problems with her jealous husband, not to mention , Varvara, a big rival, and her literary celebration efforts, and party , are a disaster, quite funny if you're not she or her friends. The wobbly Governor is acting weirdly, yelling at everyone , giving orders, the difficulty, nobody understands his words. Fires breaks out at a nearby town, more dead bodies discovered, suicides increase, there is something not right ....Dostoyevsky's philosophical novel ( inspired by a real political killing in 1869), about demons possessing the people of Russia, causing them to do evil deeds, in the name of revolution. Anything can be justified, as long as the results satisfy , ( The Ends Justify the Means). Sadly this concept is still widely believed, in the 21st century.

  7. 5 out of 5

    آبتین گلکار

    داستایِفسکی در این رمان هم پرسشی ابدی را مطرح کرده که هنوز دغدغه انگیز است و به شکلهای مختلف در زندگی شخصی و اجتماعی ما رخ می نمایاند. پرسش این است: آیا به نام هدفی متعالی می توان دست به جنایت زد؟ یا به بیانی کلیشه ای و نازل تر: آیا هدف وسیله را توجیه می کند؟ داستایِفسکی این رمان را در واکنش به رخدادی واقعی نوشت که در تاریخ روسیه به «قتل دانشجو ایوانوف» مشهور شد: سِرگِی نچایِف، رهبر گروه انقلابی ـ تروریستی «انتقام مردمی»، به دنبال اختلاف نظرهایی با ایوان ایوانوف 23ساله، از اعضای گروه خود، تصمیم ب داستایِفسکی در این رمان هم پرسشی ابدی را مطرح کرده که هنوز دغدغه‌ انگیز است و به شکل‌های مختلف در زندگی شخصی و اجتماعی ما رخ می‌ نمایاند. پرسش این است: آیا به نام هدفی متعالی می‌ توان دست به جنایت زد؟ یا به بیانی کلیشه‌ ای و نازل‌ تر: آیا هدف وسیله را توجیه می‌ کند؟ داستایِفسکی این رمان را در واکنش به رخدادی واقعی نوشت که در تاریخ روسیه به «قتل دانشجو ایوانوف» مشهور شد: سِرگِی نچایِف، رهبر گروه انقلابی ـ تروریستی «انتقام مردمی»، به دنبال اختلاف‌ نظرهایی با ایوان ایوانوف 23ساله، از اعضای گروه خود، تصمیم به قتل او گرفت و نقشة خود را عملی کرد تا هم یگانگی گروه را تحکیم بخشد و هم بر وجهه و اقتدار خود بیفزاید. ولی ظاهراً در این ماجرا آنچه بیش از همه توجه داستایفسکی را به خود جلب کرده بود، این نکته بود که چگونه شخصی که داعیة اصلاح و بهتر کردن جهان را در سر دارد (هدف هر انقلابی)، ممکن است خود آفرینندة شر باشد و دست به ویرانگری و کشتار بزند. روحیة تروریسم انقلابی، اخلاق و ارزش‌های نیهیلیستی، و این اندیشه که برای ساختن جهانی نو باید نخست جهان قدیم را از بیخ و بن نابود کرد، در آن زمان در میان جوانان روسیه هوادار فراوان داشت و بسیاری از روشنفکران و نویسندگان و منتقدان پیشرو نیز بر این آتش می‌ دمیدند. نام رمان برگرفته از باب هشتم انجیل لوقا و حکایت دیوهایی است که در وجود شخصی حلول کرده بودند و به ارادة حضرت عیسی از وجود آن شخص به درون گله‌ای خوک حلول کردند و در دریاچه غرق شدند. در رمان داستایِفسکی نیز شاهد آن هستیم که ایده و اندیشه‌ ای که بدون آمادگی روانی و اخلاقیِ لازم بر افراد چیره شود، می‌ تواند آنان را به جن‌ زدگانی تبدیل کند که در راه هدفی که درست می‌ پندارند، بدون تعقل دست به هرکاری بزنند. وقتی همة ارزش‌ها و اصول اخلاقی پیشین یکسره نفی شوند، فانوس راهنمایی جز همان ایدة نیازموده باقی نمی‌ ماند و هرعملی، و لو شیطانی، و لو قتل و ویرانگری، در راه رسیدن به هدف موجه به نظر می‌ رسد. خواندن رمان داستایِفسکی از این نظر بسیار آموزنده است. خوانندة امروزی کتاب ممکن است آن را قدری خسته‌ کننده و شرح و توصیف‌های آن را بیش از حد مفصل و طولانی بیابد، ولی محتوای فکری ـ عقیدتی آن قاعدتاً باید بر این عیب (اگر واقعاً این را عیب بدانیم) بچربد و خواننده را جذب داستان کند.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Firdevs

    Dostoyevskinin siyasi ve felsefe konularını en derinden işlediği kitabıdır..

  9. 5 out of 5

    Maloja Snake

    Τα 5 αστερια ειναι πολυ λιγα για να περιγραψουν τους συγκλονιστικης δυναμης και απαραμιλλου βαθους Δαιμονισμενους του αγαπημενου μου Ντοστογιεφσκι.Εχοντας επηρεαστει απο την πρωτη πολυκροτη πολιτικη δικη που συγκλονισε την κοινωνια της Ρωσιας στα μεσα του 19ου αιωνα,πλαθει ενα ποικιλομορφο μωσαικο πληρως αντιπροσωπευτικο των ανθρωπων της(και οχι της τοτε μονο εποχης).Ως φοντο λειτουργει η πολιτικη αναστατωση και η αφυπνιση καποιων μεριδων της κοινωνιας που αναζητουν την αλλαγη διακρινομενοι σε σ Τα 5 αστερια ειναι πολυ λιγα για να περιγραψουν τους συγκλονιστικης δυναμης και απαραμιλλου βαθους Δαιμονισμενους του αγαπημενου μου Ντοστογιεφσκι.Εχοντας επηρεαστει απο την πρωτη πολυκροτη πολιτικη δικη που συγκλονισε την κοινωνια της Ρωσιας στα μεσα του 19ου αιωνα,πλαθει ενα ποικιλομορφο μωσαικο πληρως αντιπροσωπευτικο των ανθρωπων της(και οχι της τοτε μονο εποχης).Ως φοντο λειτουργει η πολιτικη αναστατωση και η αφυπνιση καποιων μεριδων της κοινωνιας που αναζητουν την αλλαγη διακρινομενοι σε σλαβοφιλους και δυτικιστες.Οι χαρακτηρες συνθετοι γεματη αδυναμιες,παθη,επιθυμιες,ονειρα,αναγκη να κατανοησουν τον κοσμο που τους περιβαλλει,να τον αλλαξουν,να τον καταστρεψουν να τον χτισουν απο την αρχη.Μεσα σε ολα ομως διακρινεται ο ιδιος ο τυρρανισμενος συγγραφεας ο οποιος παλευει με τους δαιμονες του και το παρελθον,ριχνει τα βελη κατα παντων βιωνωντας πικρια και εντονη απογοητευση.Τους χρακτηρες που πλαθει αλλους θα τους μισησεις αλλους θα τους λυπηθεις αλλους θα τους αγαπησεις(ή και ολα αυτα μαζι καθως ξεδιπλωνεται ο καθε χαρακτηρας),ομως πανω απο ολα θα τους καταλαβεις γιατι στην ουσια μας ειμαστε ολοι ιδιοι.Ειμαστε ολοι ανθρωποι το ιδιο φθαρτοι και αθανατοι μαζι. Στα συν η πολυ προσεγμενη εκδοση απο τον Ινδικτο που περιλαμαβανει περα απο βιογραφικα στοιχεια,σημειωσεις οπου αντιλαμβανομαστε τον συστηματικο τροπο με τον οποιο δουλευε τα εργα του ο Ντοστογιεφσκι,και συμπληρωματικο κεφαλαιο για ενα απο τους πιο ενδιαφεροντες και συνθετους χαρκτηρες που επλασε ποτε, τον Νικολαι Σταβρογκιν(ξεκαθαρα οτι πιο συγκλονιστικο εχω διαβασει)

  10. 4 out of 5

    Elie F

    Seeking for God through demons Dostoevsky's Demons reminds me a bit of the spirit which Socrates sees love as in The Symposium: halfway through gods and man and serving as a ladder in between. At first glance Demons is a anti-nihilist anti-Western pamphlet novel preaching a certain Russian Christianism that is essentially religious nationalism. The charismatic (and demonic) characters can be regarded as spokesmen for different ideologies that are gripping on the Russian mind. Each of these ideolo Seeking for God through demons Dostoevsky's Demons reminds me a bit of the spirit which Socrates sees love as in The Symposium: halfway through gods and man and serving as a ladder in between. At first glance Demons is a anti-nihilist anti-Western pamphlet novel preaching a certain Russian Christianism that is essentially religious nationalism. The charismatic (and demonic) characters can be regarded as spokesmen for different ideologies that are gripping on the Russian mind. Each of these ideologies carry a perspective on God, as Shatov put it: "The aim of all movements of nations...is solely seeking for God." Let it be Pyotr Verkhovensky's destructive nihilistic socialism which serves as a disguise for opportunism, or Kirilov's faith in self-will to overcome pain and fear and become God himself, or Shatov's religious nationalism which regards God as the synthetic person of a nation, or Stavrogin's figure as a Satan-like, seductive, yet repellent and empty personality which Dostoevsky associates with the hallucination of Romanticism. All of them perish at the end of the novel, which Dostoevsky portrays as a sign of "immeasurable and infinite" divinity. I don't know how much Dostoevsky agrees with the neurotic Christianism which he seemingly preaches in all his major works and is also iterated by the dying Stepan Verkhovensky at the end of Demons: "And perhaps they already have! It is us, us and them, and Petrusha. . . et les autres avec lui, and I, perhaps, first, at the head, and we will rush, insane and raging, from the cliff down into the sea, and all be drowned, and good riddance to us, because that's the most we're fit for. But the sick man will be healed and 'sit at the feet of Jesus'. . and everyone will look in amazement." "The whole law of human existence consists in nothing other than a man's always being able to bow before the immeasurably great." Stepen Verkhovensky self-identifies as a demon that will eventually come out of the sick man that is Russia and enter into swines. What the swines will be, I'm curious.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Panos

    Ομολογώ πως έχω ολοκληρώσει το μυθιστόρημα εδώ και λίγες ημέρες, αλλά όλο ανέβαλλα να το περάσω στα read μου και να γράψω λίγα λόγια για αυτή την αναγνωστική εμπειρία. Νομίζω πως τώρα, λίγο πριν εκπνεύσει ο Απρίλης, είναι πια καιρός να το πάρω απόφαση. Δεν θα κρύψω πως με δυσκόλεψε αρκετά η ανάγνωση των Δαιμονισμένων. Εκτός από το μέγεθός του, η νοηματική του πυκνότητα και ένταση με ανάγκαζαν να προχωρώ με αργούς ρυθμούς. Φυσικά πρόκειται για αριστούργημα της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας, ένα έργο κλα Ομολογώ πως έχω ολοκληρώσει το μυθιστόρημα εδώ και λίγες ημέρες, αλλά όλο ανέβαλλα να το περάσω στα read μου και να γράψω λίγα λόγια για αυτή την αναγνωστική εμπειρία. Νομίζω πως τώρα, λίγο πριν εκπνεύσει ο Απρίλης, είναι πια καιρός να το πάρω απόφαση. Δεν θα κρύψω πως με δυσκόλεψε αρκετά η ανάγνωση των Δαιμονισμένων. Εκτός από το μέγεθός του, η νοηματική του πυκνότητα και ένταση με ανάγκαζαν να προχωρώ με αργούς ρυθμούς. Φυσικά πρόκειται για αριστούργημα της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας, ένα έργο κλασικό, ωστόσο πρέπει να επισημάνω πως υπήρξαν χωρία που με κούρασαν κάπως (π.χ. διάλογοι μεταξύ Βαρβάρας Πετρόβνα και Στεπάν Τροφίμοβιτς- ειδικά ο Στεπάν με εκνεύριζε διαρκώς). Οι σχοινοτενείς διάλογοι πολιτικού, κοινωνικού και θεολογικού περιεχομένου μεταξύ των χαρακτήρων σε κοσμικά -ή μη- σαλόνια εναλλάσσονται με μια πλοκή καταιγιστικών ρυθμών, κρατώντας αμείωτο το ενδιαφέρον του αναγνώστη. Και πού έγκειται, λοιπόν, η γοητεία των Δαιμονισμένων; Μα στους χαρακτήρες: άκρως ενδιαφέροντες, πολύπλευροι και «αληθινοί». Οι χαρακτήρες συνιστούν μια πρόκληση για τον αναγνώστη, αφού δεν προσφέρονται για εύκολες και ‘ανώδυνες’ ταυτίσεις. Διαβάζοντας κανείς το μυθιστόρημα, ταυτόχρονα αγαπά και μισεί, θαυμάζει και λυπάται αυτούς τους χειμαζόμενους από τους δαίμονές τους λογοτεχνικούς χαρακτήρες. Πρόκειται για ένα μυθιστόρημα με ξεκάθαρο πολιτικό στίγμα, θεολογικές προεκτάσεις και ανησυχίες και, σαφέστατα, με απαράμιλλο φιλοσοφικό βάθος που το καθιστούν ξεχωριστή, εποικοδομητική και άκρως γοητευτική λογοτεχνική πραγματεία πάνω στο ζήτημα του Κακού.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Bruce

    Dostoevsky’s novel, Demons (often falsely translated The Possessed, thereby erroneously stressing the object rather than the subject), is one of his most powerful books, a socio-political work exploring 19th century ideas (the “demons”) current in Russia at the time, specifically European liberalism and nihilism in contrast to what was most important to Dostoevsky, Russian Orthodoxy, and in this sense the author seems a forerunner of Solzhenitzyn a century later, in our own time. At times the no Dostoevsky’s novel, Demons (often falsely translated The Possessed, thereby erroneously stressing the object rather than the subject), is one of his most powerful books, a socio-political work exploring 19th century ideas (the “demons”) current in Russia at the time, specifically European liberalism and nihilism in contrast to what was most important to Dostoevsky, Russian Orthodoxy, and in this sense the author seems a forerunner of Solzhenitzyn a century later, in our own time. At times the novel seems almost droll, particularly in the author’s finely drawn characterizations of his protagonists, but the story turns progressively and inexorably sinister and tragic, plumbing the depths of human anguish and despair, no character escaping the darkness. The work is powerful and haunting, psychologically perceptive and penetrating. One critical chapter, “At Tikhon’s,” was deleted by the censor as immoral, Dostoevsky being forced to publish the book without it; the chapter was included in this edition (the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation) as an appendix, and it is critically important to an understanding of the thought and motivation of the main character, Stavrogin; not to read it is to miss much, Stavrogin’s actions seeming inexplicable and arbitrary without these insights. This work provides insights into Dostoevsky’s development as a novelist and is a worthy predecessor to his monumental masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Sarah

    My favorite extended quote from Demons: “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 My favorite extended quote from Demons: “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.”

  14. 5 out of 5

    Luís C.

    The Demons is a thought-provoking book that captures the attention of the reader by the richness of detail, the engaging and differentiated narration. The narration is done through chronicles, where the chronicler narrates the facts that are happening, other times he reports what happened as he also acts as a character witnessing what happened. This process of narration makes reading dynamic and engaging. It is important to emphasize the philosophical and socio-political content of the dialogues The Demons is a thought-provoking book that captures the attention of the reader by the richness of detail, the engaging and differentiated narration. The narration is done through chronicles, where the chronicler narrates the facts that are happening, other times he reports what happened as he also acts as a character witnessing what happened. This process of narration makes reading dynamic and engaging. It is important to emphasize the philosophical and socio-political content of the dialogues, which give the book a philosophical character. The novel portrays with fidelity (typical of those who experienced the political, social and philosophical events of that time), the political movements constituted by young people in search of the organization of a revolutionary society in Russia of the XIX century. As an excellent connoisseur of the human soul, the author exposes his protagonists with mastery, showing how moral miseries can lead to spurious actions, despite starting from altruistic philosophical concepts and well-intentioned ideologies. Thus Pyotr Stepanovich, an intelligent and ambitious young man, devoid of moral values but a skilled speaker, endowed with a great charisma and power of conviction, uses this capacity and creates a mythical and prophetic atmosphere around him to lead a constituted group of individuals, who act submissively to their excesses. This subservience stems from the lack of ethical principles, moral inadequacy and, above all, greed for power, regardless of the means. Therefore, conspiracies, crimes and intrigues are committed in the name of the cause for which they fight, in order to destabilize order, instill panic and lead the people to rebellion. Reading makes it possible for us to conclude, that without moral and ethical principles and a true humanism, there is no ideology that can conquer a more just and egalitarian society.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Atefeh

    ١ اين كتاب تقريبا هشت سال قبل از برادران كارامازوف نوشته شده و كاش كاش كاش كسي بهم ميگفت كه بايد اين رو قبل از برادران كارامازوف خوند، ايدوئولوژي ها و مسائلي كه مطرح ميشه يك مقدمه ي بي نظير براي برادران كارامازوفه، پيشنهاد من اينه كه اين كتاب رو قبل از اون بخونيد اينجوري بخش هايي از كتاب به خصوص قسمت هاي مذهبي كتاب برادارن كارامازوف كه ممكنه كمي گنگ به نظر بياد رمزگشايي ميشه ٢ دو تم اصلي كتاب مسئله ي وجود خير مطلق و عدم وجود خير مطلق (ايمان و كفر اما نه به اون معناي سطحي كه ما ميدونيم)و خودكشيه ٣ ١ اين كتاب تقريبا هشت سال قبل از برادران كارامازوف نوشته شده و كاش كاش كاش كسي بهم ميگفت كه بايد اين رو قبل از برادران كارامازوف خوند، ايدوئولوژي ها و مسائلي كه مطرح ميشه يك مقدمه ي بي نظير براي برادران كارامازوفه، پيشنهاد من اينه كه اين كتاب رو قبل از اون بخونيد اينجوري بخش هايي از كتاب به خصوص قسمت هاي مذهبي كتاب برادارن كارامازوف كه ممكنه كمي گنگ به نظر بياد رمزگشايي ميشه ٢ دو تم اصلي كتاب مسئله ي وجود خير مطلق و عدم وجود خير مطلق (ايمان و كفر اما نه به اون معناي سطحي كه ما ميدونيم)و خودكشيه ٣ شخصيت هاي كتاب بي نظيرن ، كتاب پر از شخصيت و داستان هاي به ظاهر پراكنده س كه با يك ستون فقرات خيلي محكم و قوي بهم وصل شدن نميتونيد شخصيت اول كتاب رو پيدا كنيد چون كه اصلا وجود آدم ها اهميت نداره و شخصيت اصلي و جن زده ي اصلي كتاب روسيه است كه آدم هايي كه چرك و عفوناتش رو وارد جسمشون كردن براي بقاش بايد قرباني بشن و در دريا غرق بشن تا روسيه ي تزكيه شده سر تعظيم در برابر خير مطلق فرو بياره و دوباره زنده بشه( نقل به مضمون از كتاب)(كتاب با اين عبارت از انجيل شروع ميشه : و در آن نزديكي گله ي بزرگ خوكي بود كه در كوهستان ميچريد و اجنه ها از عيسي خواهش كردند كه بديشان اجازت دهد تا در جسم خوك ها داخل شوند و او به آن ها اجازت داد ، آن ها از جسم آن مرد بيرون آمدند و در خوك ها داخل شدند . گله به جست و خيز درآمد و به درياچه پريد و غرق شد...پس مردم بيرون آمدند تا ماجرا را ببينند و نزد عيسي رسيدند و مردي را كه اجانين از جسمش بيرون آمده بودند مشاهده كردند كه لباس به تن نموده و عاقل گشته و در زير پاي عيسي نشسته است) ٤ نكته ي جالب اينه كه يك فصل از كتاب در زمان انتشارش به دست ويراستار كتاب ميخاييل كاتكف سانسور شد ، داستايوسكي خيلي تلاش كرد كه اين فصل رو ( در محضر تيخون) حفظ كنه اما موفق نشد ولي بعد از مرگش و در چاپ هاي جديد اين فصل ضميمه ي كتاب شد، اين فصل درباره ي ديدار استاوروگين با كشيشي به نام تيخونه و اعترافش به تجاوز به دختربچه اي و اينكه با خونسردي شاهد خودكشي اون دختر بوده و ادامه ي ماجرا و داستايوسكي حق داشت كه اين فصل براي تشريح شخصيت نيكلاي استاوروگين به شدت لازمه و اين فصل عجب مقدمه ي بي نظيريه براي صحنه ي اول ملاقات خانواده ي كارامازوف با پدر زوسيما و تيخوف چقدر شبيه جووني هاي پدر زوسيما در برادران كارامازوفه ٥ اگر راجع به ايدئولوژي هاي مذهبي و سياسي كه در كتاب مطرح ميشه هم بنويسم ديگه خيلي طولاني ميشه پس اونا رو ميذارم به عهده ي دوستان و در ادامه بخش هايي از كتاب رو ميارم: - يك خدانشناس و زنديق، خواه شما بپسنديد و خواه نه ، روي پله ي ماقبل آخريست كه به ايمان كامل منتهي ميگردد( از اين پله بالا ميرود يا نه مسئله ديگريست) حال آنكه آدم بي قيد و بي تفاوت و سهل انگار هيچ ايماني ندارد جز يك ترس بيمورد و ناپسند و اين امر هم به ندرت اتفاق ميفتد... -انسان بدبخت است چون نميداند كه خوشبخت است ، تنها به اين علت و بس اساس مطلب همين است ، همين كه كسي به اين نكته پي برد بيدرنگ خوشبخت خواهد شد ... همه چيز خير و صلاح است اين نكته را بر حسب تصادف فهميدم ( جاي ديگه اي هم اين مطلب مياد كه انسان علاوه بر خوشبختي براي خوشبخت بودن به همان اندازه به حضور بدبختي نيازمند است ، نقل به مضمون) -شما بچه ها رو دوست داريد؟ كيريلوف( شخصيتي كه قصد خودكشي دارد) خونسرد جواب داد: آنها را دوست دارم پس زندگي را دوست داريد ٦ من ترجمه ي دكتر علي اصغر خبره زاده رو خوندم ،ترجمه ميتونست بهتر باشه

  16. 5 out of 5

    Vit Babenco

    Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s portrayal of human nature is so idiosyncratic that he simply can’t be surpassed by anybody in this art. There always are some fashionable ideas and human beings, who can’t think indepedably, prefer to follow this fashion blindly and those people are eventually used by the others… They just become cat’s paw. “And you know it all comes from that same half-bakedness, that sentimentality. They are fascinated, not by realism, but by the emotional ideal side of socialism, by the rel Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s portrayal of human nature is so idiosyncratic that he simply can’t be surpassed by anybody in this art. There always are some fashionable ideas and human beings, who can’t think indepedably, prefer to follow this fashion blindly and those people are eventually used by the others… They just become cat’s paw. “And you know it all comes from that same half-bakedness, that sentimentality. They are fascinated, not by realism, but by the emotional ideal side of socialism, by the religious note in it, so to say, by the poetry of it… second-hand, of course.” They are hollow men, men of paper but united, they turn into a disturbed wasp nest or a skein of venomous snakes… “Men made of paper! It all comes from flunkeyism of thought. There's hatred in it, too. They'd be the first to be terribly unhappy if Russia could be suddenly reformed, even to suit their own ideas, and became extraordinarily prosperous and happy. They'd have no one to hate then, no one to curse, nothing to find fault with. There is nothing in it but an immense animal hatred for Russia which has eaten into their organism…” He who can’t find his place in the sun always ends up trying to destroy the word…

  17. 4 out of 5

    Nelson Zagalo

    "Demónios" (1872) não é um romance, não é também um romance histórico, é um trabalho de puro ativismo social mas que nunca se subjuga ao mero panfleto, assume o fundo realista para se debruçar sobre as especificidades do realismo social e psicológico, ou seja, debate as questões que faziam mover a sociedade russa na segunda metade do século XIX, procurando compreendê-las a partir das motivações psicológicas dos seus principais atores. Ao fazê-lo Dostoiévski dava conta do que acontecia e do poten "Demónios" (1872) não é um romance, não é também um romance histórico, é um trabalho de puro ativismo social mas que nunca se subjuga ao mero panfleto, assume o fundo realista para se debruçar sobre as especificidades do realismo social e psicológico, ou seja, debate as questões que faziam mover a sociedade russa na segunda metade do século XIX, procurando compreendê-las a partir das motivações psicológicas dos seus principais atores. Ao fazê-lo Dostoiévski dava conta do que acontecia e do potencial que essas ações encerravam para o futuro da sociedade, daí que apelidar Dostoiévski de profeta assuma neste livro o seu sentido maior. [imagens - http://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com/...] As personagens reais por detrás da história criada por Dostoiévski. Acima: Granovsky, Tchernichévski, Turguenev; em baixo: Bakunin e Nechayev. (Imagens do Museu de Dostoiévski, São Petersburgo). “Demónios” é baseado num crime de assassínio cometido em 1869 pelo niilista Sergey Nechayev, autor do “Catecismo de um Revolucionário”, um manifesto que apresenta as bases ideológicas e executivas para a promoção daquilo que hoje designamos como Terrorismo. Como nos seus livros anteriores, Dostoiévski empenha-se aqui na luta contra o radicalismo político nas suas diferentes frentes, do niilismo ao comunismo. Terá contribuído para tal: o facto de ele próprio, nos seus 20 anos, ter pertencido a grupos literários radicais (Círculo Petrashevsky); os anos passados na prisão na Sibéria; e todo um amadurecimento; que o conduziriam a um recentrar de ideias, fugindo do ateísmo e impondo-se uma moldura de crença religiosa que o tornaria imune à redução do humano a mero joguete político. O radicalismo que Dostoiévski ataca é aquele que se assume a partir da excisão da empatia do ser humano. [imagem] "Estudante Niilista" (1883) de Ilya Repin Depois do ataque direto a Tchernichévski em “Memórias do Subterrâneo” (1864), esta obra é talvez o seu mais violento ataque político, plena de raiva e carregada de horror, para dar conta do seu mau-estar com tudo o que grassava a sociedade russa. Sem subterfúgios Dostoiévski aponta o dedo a Turgueniev, a Tchernichévski, a Herzen, a Fourier, a Bakunin a todo o tipo de aventuras radicais que colocavam o indivíduo em segundo plano em nome de ideais, supostamente científicos, criados a partir de abstrações, de conceptualizações que limitavam o humano a mera variável de sistemas lógicos. Ora Dostoiévski após a sua experiência de quase-morte, quando lhe foi sentenciada a execução por fuzilamento, dá-se conta de que o ser humano não é mera abstração mas é alguém que sofre enquanto busca por se compreender a si mesmo, e que as ideias não se podem sobrepor às pessoas. Assim, temos Dostoiévsky a desconstruir a estrutura psicológica que suporta o terrorismo, o de ontem e o de hoje. Sim Profeta, porque esta obra e outras do autor, mas esta especialmente, previu o que viria a acontecer na Rússia, uma revolução terrorista como fica expresso na seguinte passagem do livro: “[Chigalev:] Ao dedicar a minha energia ao estudo da organização social da sociedade futura que substituirá a presente, cheguei à convicção de que todos os criadores dos sistemas sociais, desde a antiguidade até à presente data de 187..., eram uns sonhadores, uns fantasistas e uns tolos que se contradiziam a si mesmos, que não percebiam nada de ciências naturais e daquele estranho animal que se chama homem. Platão, Rousseau, Fourier, as colunas de alumínio, tudo isso talvez seja adequado para os pardais, mas não para a sociedade humana. Mas como a futura forma social é necessária precisamente agora, quando todos nós, finalmente, tencionamos agir para não termos de refletir nunca mais, vou propor o meu próprio sistema de organização do mundo. Ei-lo! (..) Confundi os meus próprios dados, e a minha conclusão está em contradição direta com a ideia inicial em que me baseio. Partindo do princípio da liberdade ilimitada, chego à conclusão do despotismo ilimitado. Acrescento no entanto que, fora da minha solução da fórmula social, não pode haver mais nenhuma.” (..) “[Professor:] Conheço o livro dele. Propõe, como solução final, a divisão da humanidade em duas partes desiguais. Uma décima parte obtém a liberdade pessoal e um poder ilimitado sobre os restantes nove décimos. Estes têm de perder a personalidade e transformar-se numa espécie de gado, e, infinitamente submissos, atingir, mediante uma série de involuções, uma inocência primitiva, uma espécie de estado de paraíso primitivo, embora trabalhem, aliás. As medidas sugeridas pelo autor para se privar de vontade os nove décimos da humanidade e para os transformar em gado por meio da reeducação de gerações inteiras são notáveis e muito lógicas, baseadas nos dados fornecidos pelas ciências naturais. Podemos não concordar com algumas conclusões, mas é difícil duvidar-se do intelecto e dos conhecimentos do autor.” Ou seja, os revolucionários radicais que discutem estas ideias, apresentam como solução que noventa por cento da sociedade seja escravizada pelos restantes dez por cento. A igualdade entre os 90% deve ser operada pela polícia, terrorismo de Estado e destruição das vidas cultural e artística. Dostoiévski estima que para atingir o paraíso político, precisarão de eliminar "cem milhões" de pessoas pelo caminho. Isto foi escrito em 1872, a revolução comunista começou em 1917, e num estudo publicado em 1997 em França, "O Livro Negro do Comunismo: Crimes, Terror, Repressão" dá-se como número provável de mortes às mãos do comunismo, 94 milhões de pessoas. E hoje, quando reflito nisto assusto-me ao pensar naquilo em que Portugal esteve perto de se transformar, em 1974. Obviamente que estas ideias perigosas não surgem do vazio, são precisas condições propícias à sua germinação, e a Rússia do final do século XIX aproximava-se perigosamente da França do final do século XVIII. Existia uma clara necessidade de pôr termo ao luxo desmedido da monarquia e séquito aristocrata. Apesar de o reinado Romanov estar já muito transformado, de ter abolido a escravatura e criado todo um sistema de governo e Estado muito mais justos, as diferenças entre classes eram ainda abissais. Por isso surgem indivíduos como Sergey Nechayev que viam em Robespierre o único caminho possível, e que vão preparando o terreno para mais tarde Lenine chegar do estrangeiro, e com toda uma espécie de legitimidade, aplicar a cartilha revolucionária, e sem pudor defender que não um mas toda a Casa Romanov devia ser eliminada. Dostoiévski previu Lénine, e a sociedade russa estaria alerta, contudo não deixa de ser verdade que a Europa não foi inocente em todo esse processo, tendo contribuído para colocar Lénine no poder na Rússia, podendo apenas servir-lhe de desculpa a Primeira Grande Guerra. Assim como não podemos esquecer que se a NATO não tivesse instalado um porta-aviões no Tejo junto ao Palácio de Belém, em 1975, mais toda uma enorme atividade diplomática, provavelmente hoje eu não poderia estar a escrever estas linhas com todo este à vontade. Sobre o livro em si. A escrita de Dostoiévski não é fácil de seguir, não pela excessiva elaboração, mas pela quantidade de contexto que requer para a sua compreensão, e assim obtenção de prazer. Não ajuda também o já conhecido problema desta literatura assente numa grande quantidade de personagens, todos com três nomes, fora os diminutivos, o que obriga a redobrada atenção no seguimento da trama. Por outro lado, este livro apresenta uma espécie de dupla linha de enredo, primeiro a geração mais velha — Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky e Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina — com a sua forma de estar intelectual, aristocrática e distante, e em segundo plano, ou talvez o principal, os seus filhos — Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin e Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky —, os radicais totalmente incapazes de empatia. Dostoiévski não estabelece nunca a relação entre pais e filhos, deixando para o leitor o trabalho de compreender essa relação, mas apontando claramente no sentido mais crítico à obra de Turguenev "Pais e Filhos" (1862). Sobre a edição portuguesa, devo dizer que vem com um capítulo extra no final do livro, que foi escrito por Dostoiévski para ser lido como o primeiro capítulo da terceira parte, mas que aquando da publicação teve dificuldades em fazer passar pelo editor. Li como Dostoiévski pretendia, e considero que tinha toda a razão. Sim, é um capítulo forte e intenso, talvez mais vulgar nos dias de hoje, mas é um capítulo fundamental para compreender até onde pode ir a obscenidade do radicalismo do protagonista da história: Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin. Todo o resto do livro apresenta um Stavrogin muito indefinido, necessário à criação da complexidade psicológica, mas este capítulo funciona como espécie de chave do seu caráter, e mais do que isso, como chave explicativa do niilismo. Publicado no VI, com imagens e links: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/...

  18. 4 out of 5

    amapola

    Un romanzo complesso, impegnativo, anche pesante a tratti, ma Dostoevskij – come sempre – pur raccontando una storia particolare, con personaggi delineati nitidamente, riesce a parlare di qualcosa di universale, che riguarda l’umanità tutta e ogni uomo, qualcosa che riguarda me. Albert Camus, che per vent’anni ha lavorato ad una riduzione teatrale di questo romanzo, dice: “I demoni è un romanzo profetico non solo perché annuncia il nostro nichilismo, ma anche perché mette in scena anime dilaniate Un romanzo complesso, impegnativo, anche pesante a tratti, ma Dostoevskij – come sempre – pur raccontando una storia particolare, con personaggi delineati nitidamente, riesce a parlare di qualcosa di universale, che riguarda l’umanità tutta e ogni uomo, qualcosa che riguarda me. Albert Camus, che per vent’anni ha lavorato ad una riduzione teatrale di questo romanzo, dice: “I demoni è un romanzo profetico non solo perché annuncia il nostro nichilismo, ma anche perché mette in scena anime dilaniate o morenti, incapaci d’amare e sofferenti di non poterlo fare, che vogliono e non possono credere, che sono le stesse che popolano oggi la nostra società e il nostro universo spirituale”.

  19. 5 out of 5

    amin akbari

    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 ا 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

  20. 5 out of 5

    Konstantina August

    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 αισθανθ 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. ❣

  21. 4 out of 5

    Khashayar Mohammadi

    I was savoring every single page , but the library deadline suddenly forced me to plough through the second half in a single day. I shall not review this book until I have thoroughly re-read it, but the pages I read attentively were truly inspiring and posed the moral dilemmas that Russian literature and especially Dostoyevsky himself is famous for. Also a technical fact that made me worship the book was the simple fact that Dostoyevsky had used the characters' full names EVERY SINGLE TIME. As a I was savoring every single page , but the library deadline suddenly forced me to plough through the second half in a single day. I shall not review this book until I have thoroughly re-read it, but the pages I read attentively were truly inspiring and posed the moral dilemmas that Russian literature and especially Dostoyevsky himself is famous for. Also a technical fact that made me worship the book was the simple fact that Dostoyevsky had used the characters' full names EVERY SINGLE TIME. As a lover of Russian literature who struggles with remembering names, I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH how great that felt!!!

  22. 5 out of 5

    Navid Taghavi

    هیچ نقشی زیرکانه تر از نقش طبیعی خود آدم نیست. زیرا هیچ کس باور نمی کند که کسی پیدا شود که صورتکی بر چهره نداشته باشد.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Chris_P

    I wish I was eloquent enough so I could talk about Demons. I'm not. I severely lack the necessary intellect that would allow me to analyze it or even say a few things worth mentioning, the way they should be said. I will, however, state the obvious. Demons has great, limitless philosophical value. It's not a novel meant to be read as a pastime activity. It's demanding of one's full attention and capacity and still, it might be necessary for one to go back several times in order to not lose grip I wish I was eloquent enough so I could talk about Demons. I'm not. I severely lack the necessary intellect that would allow me to analyze it or even say a few things worth mentioning, the way they should be said. I will, however, state the obvious. Demons has great, limitless philosophical value. It's not a novel meant to be read as a pastime activity. It's demanding of one's full attention and capacity and still, it might be necessary for one to go back several times in order to not lose grip of the plot and/or grasp the meaning of Dosto's words. Several matters are touched, such as that of suicide which Camus, a century later, took even further. The main theme, though, is change. A change brought about by persons possesed by demons and this change is the projection of their own demonized selves. Another thing worth mentioning is its darkness. What I found impressive, though, is that it doesn't need to label itself dark. It doesn't shout it nor does it let its darkness cover its aforementioned philosophical value. It simply is dark. Not the way a novel is, but rather the way life is. Last but not least, the chapter which was censored and thus left out is very important to the story and truely unique for its time. I'd say that it shines light on the story's point and that alone justifies the title. It beats me why it's included merely as an appendix nowadays and not where it should be. It's 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.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Jeremy

    The quality and mastery of Dostoevsky’s vision, and his use of character and plot and pacing, are all on display in this marvelous work. It’s true that perhaps it doesn’t hold together as strongly as some of his other works; but it’s not true that this is a poor example of his work. In some ways, it exceeds all of them, particularly through voice and narrative instability. There perhaps is some reticence to include it amongst the ‘greats’ due to politics and religion, both then and now. Dostoevs The quality and mastery of Dostoevsky’s vision, and his use of character and plot and pacing, are all on display in this marvelous work. It’s true that perhaps it doesn’t hold together as strongly as some of his other works; but it’s not true that this is a poor example of his work. In some ways, it exceeds all of them, particularly through voice and narrative instability. There perhaps is some reticence to include it amongst the ‘greats’ due to politics and religion, both then and now. Dostoevsky, the author, is something that always seems to outstrip the pigeon-holer: even Dostoevsky, the man... A genuine review of this book would be at least another book, and I would prefer to be reading more and writing other things… While I love Dostoevsky independently (as did the Frenchman of whom I shall now speak), my motivation to read this book now was to prepare myself to read Camus’ ‘The Possessed’, the play he wrote based on the novel, as part of my 2013 centenary celebration of the Frenchman (yes, I know he was born in Algeria...). So I will start with some general points and then discuss the book in terms of how it relates to Camus and his thinking. Dostoevsky, through the character of his narrator, Mr G—v, is exploring a world in change: there are ‘new ideas’ everywhere. This was a liminial phase in Europe and western Asia that both men were living in, the real and the fictional. Politics was on the move, class structures were under assault, what to believe in was being problemised. (It’s still going on now, but in different ways and, mostly, less overtly violently on a grand scale.) Man, woman; master, serf; science, religion; and more so, on a larger scale, how we go about believing in things and what effects these changes (or lack-of-changes) would have on people and social life itself and on being moral. Many opinions get expressed in this novel, many of which could easily slip into contemporary discourse without much of a hitch (just add some pop culture references…) Particularly: ‘Half-science is a despot such has never been known before. A despot that has its own priests and slaves, a despot before whom everyone prostates himself with love and superstitious dread, such as has been quite inconceivable until now, before whom science itself trembles and surrenders in a shameful way.’ And the terrible villain himself: ‘On the other hand, the docility of schoolboys and fools has reached the highest pitch; the schoolmasters are full of bile; everywhere we see vanity reaching inordinate proportions; enormous bestial appetites … Do you realize how many converts we will make by trite and ready-made ideas?’ Mr G—v, our very all-too-well-informed-of-events narrator, certainly leans toward a rather traditional line, and his summings up, particularly the ones that he demands are the most true, are often a little fishy in terms of their reliability. As with any narrator, any time he or she is not directly present in events, even if they discuss which character informed them etc etc, there is room for playful doubt for the reader, and I would urge any reader to take this into account, as I'm sure would the author. That the villains of the piece get their come-uppance we are fore-told by the narrator early on, but not the depths and nature of the villainy: Dostoevsky makes use of prolepsis on numerous occasions to lead us along. There is quite a body count: it would have to be the most violent of his novels I know of, and he handles violence interestingly, both in a visceral sense and a psychological. As for Camus and Absurdism: there are two exchanges I wish to mention specifically, and both involve the moral suicide-intendee, Kirilov. Now, Camus’ first major work of Philosophy, The Myth of Sisyphus, has a famous first line: ‘There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.’ Is life worth living: why/why not? Or, put earlier: To be or not to be? Kirilov is planning to kill himself; why he is waiting, I shall not reveal for spoiler reasons, but he is fully and completely intending to do so. ‘Everyone who desires supreme freedom must dare to kill himself’ he tells our narrator in the first exchange I wish to talk about. When he’s discussing suicide as an option and they talk about pain, Kirilov brings up the example of a massive, huge stone, suspending in the air above your head, and makes the point that while you could be intellectually sure that releasing that stone on yourself would make death instantaneous and painless by such a large weight, you would still fear the pain that you know wouldn’t happen. And he likens this to the nature of God, or, if your prefer to be more contemporary, Grand Narrative Meaning of your choice (insert this wherever you see God too, if you like). ‘He doesn’t exist, but He is. There’s no pain in a stone, but there’s pain in the fear of a stone.’ God is there, like the stone, the maker of death and all things, he hangs over us (like Meursault’s sun on the beach in The Outsider too…). But He also isn’t there, not in any sensible way, in any sort of intellectual manner. Much later, when speaking to Peter Verkhovensky, there is a further exchange relating to this problem: ‘God is necessary, and so must exist.’ [Kirilov] ‘Well, that’s all right then.’ [Peter V] ‘But I know he doesn’t exist and can’t exist.’ ‘That’s more likely.’ ‘But don’t you understand that a man with two such ideas cannot go on living?’ Camus’ chief contribution to literature and ideas can be summed up as his effort to save Kirilov; to answer his question. Living with this Kirilovic tension is what his Absurd Hero does: not denying one in favour of the other, but charting the contradiction of being human. I am very much looking forward to now reading how Camus uses his own ideas to play with these dramatic features in 'The Possessed'. There are other echoes of this tension even in the relationship between the socialist plotters and the nature of the existence of the Central Committee. The 'group of five' often worry that it doesn't exist, that it's 'mythical'. And I haven’t even touched on the fascinating moral drama of Stavrogin, or the rises and falls of the elder Verkhovensky, or Shatov’s bizarre role and metamorphosis, or many other things… And ensure that you obtain an edition that includes Stavrogin’s Confession, which was suppressed at the time (you'll see why...). It really fills out the character of Stavrogin psychologically. In it, I found such a beautiful line that could have been written just for me. You know those lovely moments... Stavrogin asks the priest, Tikhon, if he has a problem with his atheism. ‘On the contrary,’ Tikhon replied with unconcealed gaiety and good humour, ‘complete atheism is much more acceptable than worldy indifference.’ I could almost believe in God if every priest I met was written by Dostoevsky. I’m pretty sure Camus would agree. My review of 'The Possessed': Camus' play based on 'The Devils'

  25. 4 out of 5

    Melika Khoshnezhad

    این کتاب برای من خیلی متفاوت بود با کتاب های پیشینی که از داستایوفسکی خونده بودم به این دلیل عمده که ساختار داستان (شاید متناسب با محتواش) ساختار درهم برهمی تری داشت نسبت به برادران کارامازوف یا جنایات و مکافات. نه اینکه مثل داستان های مدرن نوشته شده باشه، نه، اما شخصیت ها پیچیده بودن و تا اخر هم نمی تونستی درست و حسابی از شخصیت و گذشته شون سر دربیاری. که البته من فکر می کنم این اتفاق از عمد بوده، یعنی به خاطر اینکه داستایوفسکی تمرکزش در این کتاب روی بُعد شیطانی آدم ها بوده، اینجوری می خواسته کم این کتاب برای من خیلی متفاوت بود با کتاب های پیشینی که از داستایوفسکی خونده بودم به این دلیل عمده که ساختار داستان (شاید متناسب با محتواش) ساختار درهم برهمی تری داشت نسبت به برادران کارامازوف یا جنایات و مکافات. نه اینکه مثل داستان های مدرن نوشته شده باشه، نه، اما شخصیت ها پیچیده بودن و تا اخر هم نمی تونستی درست و حسابی از شخصیت و گذشته شون سر دربیاری. که البته من فکر می کنم این اتفاق از عمد بوده، یعنی به خاطر اینکه داستایوفسکی تمرکزش در این کتاب روی بُعد شیطانی آدم ها بوده، اینجوری می خواسته کمی بیشتر حس وهم رو در شخصیت هاش به وجود بیاره. مثلا بزرگ ترین وهم این داستان درباره ی شخصیت نیکولای استاوروگین بود. این شخصیت پر از تضاد بود، و با اینکه می تونستی با اطمینان بگی اعمالش عواقب بدی داشته و نتیجه بگیری از نظر اخلاقی درست نبودن، انقدر جنبه هایی از شخصیتش گنگ باقی مونده بودن که در نهایت نمی تونستی از نتیجه گیری اخلاقیت کاملا هم مطمئنا باشی. این قضیه برای من در نیکولای پر رنگ تر از شخصیت های دیگر بود، اما بقیه ی شخصیت ها هم کمابیش همین طور گنگ بودن، و نمی تونستی از قضاوت هات در موردشون مطمئن باشی. در این کتاب به نظرم از برادران کاراموزف آشکارتر می تونستیم با فلسفه ی اگزیستانسیالیسم مذهبی داستایوفسکی روبه رو شیم. مخصوصا در شخصیت شاتوف. داستایوفسکی نهایتا بر این باور بوده که خدا باید باشه تا بشه اخلاقیات رو توجیه کرد. و به خوبی نشون می ده که در غیر این صورت شخصیتی شبیه نیکولای یا از اون بدتر شخصیت پستی مثل پیوتر خواهیم شد. شاتوف و استپان از کسانی هستند که در نهایت خدا رو می پذیرند و جز معدود شخصیت های داستان هستند که رستگار می شن هرچند برای مدت خیلی خیلی خیلی کوتاهی پیش از مرگشون.

  26. 4 out of 5

    brian

    all dostoevsky's usual tricks are here: his dense, documentary-like prose, succession of dialogue-heavy scenes leading up to a huge scandal, all his idiots and villains and beggers, his dark and keen psychological insight... yup, it's all in demons, but, goddamn, did i find this a chore to read. the characters, to me, felt too much as stand-ins for (albeit, insightful and interesting) ideas, and the plotting was laborious and repetitive... that said, it's amazing how the man laid out the breadcr all dostoevsky's usual tricks are here: his dense, documentary-like prose, succession of dialogue-heavy scenes leading up to a huge scandal, all his idiots and villains and beggers, his dark and keen psychological insight... yup, it's all in demons, but, goddamn, did i find this a chore to read. the characters, to me, felt too much as stand-ins for (albeit, insightful and interesting) ideas, and the plotting was laborious and repetitive... that said, it's amazing how the man laid out the breadcrumbs leading to twentieth century totalitarianism and the assorted madmen associated with it. but, yeah, i definitely found this to be the least of the man's 'major' works...

  27. 4 out of 5

    Tayebe Ej

    بهتر از داستایوسکی داریم مگه اصن؟

  28. 5 out of 5

    Sidharth Vardhan

    Wanna start with a 1984 like quote: 'He suggests a system of spying. Every member of the society spies on the others, and it's his duty to inform against them. Every one belongs to all and all to every one. All are slaves and equal in their slavery. In extreme cases he advocates slander and murder, but the great thing about it is equality. To begin with, the level of education, science, and talents is lowered. A high level of education and science is only possible for great intellects, and they Wanna start with a 1984 like quote: 'He suggests a system of spying. Every member of the society spies on the others, and it's his duty to inform against them. Every one belongs to all and all to every one. All are slaves and equal in their slavery. In extreme cases he advocates slander and murder, but the great thing about it is equality. To begin with, the level of education, science, and talents is lowered. A high level of education and science is only possible for great intellects, and they are not wanted. The great intellects have always seized the power and been despots. Great intellects cannot help being despots and they've always done more harm than good. They will be banished or put to death. Cicero will have his tongue cut out, Copernicus will have his eyes put out, Shakespeare will be stoned that's Shigalovism. Slaves are bound to be equal. There has never been either freedom or equality without despotism, but in the herd there is bound to be equality, and that's Shigalovism!' This novel kind of takes Dostoyevskism to a new extreme – you know what I mean; slow beginnings, lots of extremely emotional characters and long scenes. For example there is this one scene in which we have eleven characters in a single room (I counted) and each one of had a role to play in the scene in about fifty odd pages. You might think after reading like first two hundred pages that nothing is ever going to happen but that would be wrong; by the end of novel you will have dealt with a gun-duel, murders (in plural), suicides (three of them), natural death, adultery, secret marriage, unrequited loves (plural), arson, child-birth scene (it was beautiful), family reunion, riots, dancing-balls-gone-wrong etc. you name it, Dostoveskyen circus has it all. Narrator and biography The narrator is a very unimportant character in the story. He is a close friend of Stepan (a widower) – and comes out as a great observer of people, people are easily trusting their secrets in him but do not seem to think of him as a person of consequence. He begins by telling us that he is writing Stepan’s biography but soon limits himself to later’s last few days; and often talks about things that has no relation with Stephen or things he can’t possibly know. For example, how can he know what do a husband and wife talk about in their bedroom! Stepan, about whom the novel is supposed to be, is an easily excitable intellect –who despite being respected by people of his time doesn’t seem to have achieved anything of consequence and has an annoying habit of using French phrases. Although he shows some great insight into politics of his time, he never goes anywhere with it. He is, in fact, kept by a rich widow Varvara, a woman of strong character, with whom he has a strange sort of relationship. She keeps him in her house maintaining a platonic relationship, refuses angrily his offer to marry her, reads letters he wrote her daily (sometimes twice a day) with out ever replying, often throws him out only to go looking for him later and even sets a match between him and a young servant – and yet when he is on his deathbed, reproaches him vaguely for wasting twenty years. One of many love stories in this novel. Socialism and Nihilism The 'demons' in title refer to new ideas that seems to be making Russia sick. Stepan’s son Pyotr is a Nihilist and anarchist and is a cunning and very annoying person. He kind of reminds you of Cassius in Shakespeare’s ‘Julies Ceaser’. He is also that kind of guy who can quickly get on to your nerves. He pretends to be a socialist but that is only a way to manipulate people of his organization for personal objects. FD’s view on socialism seems to be same as Stavrogin (Varvara's son) - 'It’s a great idea but its exponents are not always great men.' (think Stalin) Pyotr is the exponent here and his followers seem to know nothing about it; are so removed from politics that they can’t hold a voting by show of hand. 'They are fascinated, not by realism, but by the emotional ideal side of socialism, by the religious note in it, so to say, by the poetry of it … second-hand, of course.' Pyotr’s strategy of binding people to his leadership by making them commit a crime for himself (‘the cause’) seems to be quite widely used one among politicians. FD also divined another great observation - 'The convictions and the man are two very different things.' Have you ever wondered how some of really good people seems to be asking to be punched on their noses whenever they start talking about some particular socio-political subject? Shigalevism A social system suggested by one of character - Shigalevism (see opening quote) wants ninety percent of population to be slave of remaining ten percent. Shigalev is not only suggesting it but he actually argues that is form all systems end up being like and that it is the only system that can survive. Quite a way to look at modern economies - whether capitalist or socialist given income inequialities in all of them. Censored Chapter Stavrogin’s character might remain a mystery to you till the very end – partly because one chapter which contained key to his character was censored. It has been translated by Woolf ever since along with Dostoevsky's notes on an unwritten novel as Stavrogin's Confession & the Plan of the Life of a Great Sinner. A PDF of same can be download here. It is for second time, in my reading, that FD hinted/ talked about Lolita-like sexuality in young girls. The other time was in 'Crime and Punishment' but that time it was only a dream. "I've killed the God." On Sucide FD have a great distaste of extreme rationalism and it shows – whether it is in musings of underground man; tragedy of Rashkilonov or that of Ivan Karamazov; this time it shows in character of Kirillov who has got this idea in his head that there is no God and that thus we can all become God, all we have to do is … kill ourselves. I won’t go into details of his reasoning but here are some of things he says: “If there is no God, then I’m God.” “God has tormented me all my life.” “Everyone who wants the supreme freedom must dare to kill himself.” Karmazinov K is Dostoyevsky's parody of his contemporary Ivan Turgenev, author of another novel examining the 'nihilist' generation, 'Fathers and Sons'. FD too uses allegorical relationship of fathers and sons in Stepan (liberal idealist) and Pyotr (Nihilist) Confusion Stavgrin tries to take advantage of Matryosha (an eleven year old); Cheats with Marie on her husband and marries Marya (a sort of holy fool, my favorite) – all three different and that’s not including Darya and Lisa, who have a crush on him. Want more? Lisa had a crush on Nikolai (stavgrin) but was instead engaged to Nikolaevich. Marie's husband Shatov who has a habit of changing his ideas by walking out insultingly on people when he feels used or called for compromise on his dignity; is not same as Shiagalov. Also, although he punches Stavgrin it is not because later had an affair with his wife Marie but rather because he made Marya pregnant. Talk about confusion! Some quotes: 'Poetry is nonsense and justifies what would be considered imprudence in prose.' 'A woman would deceive the all-seeing eye itself. Le bon Dieu knew what He was in for when He was creating woman, but I'm sure that she meddled in it herself and forced Him to create her such as she is.' 'How can we expect a cultured man not to commit a murder, if he is in need of money.'

  29. 5 out of 5

    Andrei Tamaş

    Acest roman s-ar fi putut la fel de lesne numi "La originile SOCIALISMULUI". Conceptul nu trebuie interpretat însă în sens ideologic (originile sale ar putea fi dibuite chiar în Grecia antică: Pericle, de pildă, chiar de nu își sistematizează crezul, transpune, prin politicile sale, premisele fundamentale ale socialismului), ci strict istoric. Nici dracu' nu știe când a fost înființată prima Internațională. Datele istorice nu interesează, deoarece la început aceasta s-a confundat cu un nucleu co Acest roman s-ar fi putut la fel de lesne numi "La originile SOCIALISMULUI". Conceptul nu trebuie interpretat însă în sens ideologic (originile sale ar putea fi dibuite chiar în Grecia antică: Pericle, de pildă, chiar de nu își sistematizează crezul, transpune, prin politicile sale, premisele fundamentale ale socialismului), ci strict istoric. Nici dracu' nu știe când a fost înființată prima Internațională. Datele istorice nu interesează, deoarece la început aceasta s-a confundat cu un nucleu compact format din câteva persoane cu o viziune mai "progresistă". Cert este că la 1848, anul care a adus atât de multe schimbări în Europa, existau deja mai multe grupuri care militau pentru "cauza comună". Așa fiind, la 1872, când Dostoievski publica Demonii, avea toată lumea cunoștință de așa-numitele "grupuri de câte 5", organizate în structură piramidală (ca organizațiile teroriste de azi - a se vedea filmul La battaglia di Algeri, 1966). Rațiunea acestei forme de organizare este lesne de înțeles. Cum dreptului la liberă exprimare abia se contura, militanții "cauzei comune" nu puteau lua megafonul și nu puteau începe să-și susțină ideile. "Acțiunile împotriva ordinii constituționale de azi"... Te băgau la zdup. Este exact lucrul descris și de Dostoievski în Demonii. Problema, cum am spus, este aceea că socialismul nu este tratat pe filiera ideologică, ci strict istoric. Romanul nu abundă în dezbateri și în monologuri, cum se întâmplă în Frații Karamazov, ci prezintă faptic un grup de internationalisti: unii cu idealuri mărețe, alții mai puțin. Tocmai de aceea, în roman nu ideile interesează, ci oamenii. Ideile nu pot fi prin ele însele corupte, ci doar oamenii. Oamenii pot fi -da!- corupți de idei, însă o idee nu poate fi coruptă. De aceea Piotr Stepanovici, deși apare cel mai mult în roman, nu este personaj principal. El nu are o drama de conștiință. Personajul principal este Stavroghin, în cazul căruia se poate vorbi de o suferință atipică. Romanul Demonii nu este un război declarat socialismului (Ce? O susține Tismăneanu!). Desigur, la o privire superficială, se poate afirma/ susține orice. A susține însă că, prin Demonii, Dostoievski s-a dezis de socialism (pe care el însuși îl susținuse în 1848, până la treapta ghilotinei) denotă o judecată superficială. A susține că Dostoievski s-a dezis de socialism înseamnă a susține că romane ca "Oameni sărmani" sau "Amintiri din casa morților" nu au nicio valoare. Ele însă transmit idei. Ideile nu sunt coagulate sub tutela unui concept unic. Dar contează denumirea sau conținutul unui crez?! Lucrul pe care Dostoievski îl face în Demonii e să condamne așa-numiții capi ai socialismului (Piotr Stepanovici, în cazul nostru), care denaturează de o așa manieră substanța vitalializantă a acestui concept, pentru satisfacerea propriilor interese, încât din el nu mai rămâne nimic. Sau, altfel spus: rămâne, pentru posteritate, imaginea unei politici rele. Adică? A se vedea Rusia, anul 1917. Susținerea mea -poate prea energică- își are fundamentele printre rândurile romanului. Pasajul din Evanghelia lui Luca e frecvent citat în roman (de altfel, motto-ul romanului este reprezentat de asta): VIII, 32-36. 32. Şi era acolo o turmă mare de porci, care păşteau pe munte. Şi L-au rugat să le îngăduie să intre în ei; şi le-a îngăduit. 33. Şi, ieşind demonii din om, au intrat în porci, iar turma s-a aruncat de pe ţărm în lac şi s-a înecat. 34. Iar păzitorii văzând ce s-a întâmplat, au fugit şi au vestit în cetate şi prin sate. 35. Şi au ieşit să vadă ce s-a întâmplat şi au venit la Iisus şi au găsit pe omul din care ieşiseră demonii, îmbrăcat şi întreg la minte, şezând jos, la picioarele lui Iisus şi s-au înfricoşat. 36. Şi cei ce văzuseră le-au spus cum a fost izbăvit demonizatul. De altfel, nu se poate susține că Dostoievski a scris romanul ca pe o confesiune, el fiind cel "vindecat de demoni", deoarece, pe patul de moarte, Stepan Trofimovici citează din biblie cu privire la fiul sau (care nu a fost "izbăvit"), respectiv cu privire la Piotr Stepanovici. Această este, de altfel, și sorgintea titlului. Despre Kirillov nu spun nimic, căci aș știrbi din savoarea romanului. Merită să citești 800 de pagini doar pentru acest personaj. Despre sărmanul Stavroghin... of! Mi s-a părut însă cel mai demn personaj din roman. Deși neagă nihilismul în față "ultimei spovedanii", viața lui nu a fost, de fapt, decât un nihilism bolnav. Chiar și "apucăturile" sale își aveau pornirea în credința în nimic. De altfel, Stavroghin ar fi un personaj ideal de analizat într-un studiu cu tema de genul: Plictiseala de azi, nihilismul de ieri (cred că sunt numeroase similitudini). Notă: subsemnatul e socialist. Cititorul trebuie să fie sceptic. "Ateul desăvârșit ocupă penultima treaptă care precedă credinței desăvârșite (că va face sau nu acest ultim pas, asta este o altă chestiune): indiferentul, dimpotrivă, nu are nici o credință, ci numai o teamă rea din când în când, și dacă este un om sensibil". "Omul nu a făcut altceva decât să-și născocească un Dumnezeu, pentru a putea trăi fără să se ucidă; în această constă întreagă istorie universală de până acum. Sunt primul în întreagă istorie universală care n-am vrut să-mi născocesc un dumnezeu. Să se afle acest lucru o dată pentru totdeauna" - Kirillov. 10+ 26 februarie 2018.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Håkon

    The likeness of the events in this novel to events that have happened recently, such as the shooting of the policemen in Dallas, or the attempted coup in Turkey, is incredible. It seems to me like the people whom this novel revolves around are misguided, they are idealists, and they will stop at nothing to get what they want. What is so interesting is that the ideas that they initially had, were sometimes good ones, the problems arised when people were starting to misinterpret ideas, or changing The likeness of the events in this novel to events that have happened recently, such as the shooting of the policemen in Dallas, or the attempted coup in Turkey, is incredible. It seems to me like the people whom this novel revolves around are misguided, they are idealists, and they will stop at nothing to get what they want. What is so interesting is that the ideas that they initially had, were sometimes good ones, the problems arised when people were starting to misinterpret ideas, or changing them, or simply fighting for the "mark" so to say, as we commonly see today, people often fight for groups or such with no knowledge of what they actually stand for. It is a known phenomena that people often feel like they have to be a part of something, an idea of sorts, what those ideas are, is of no importance, people want power, and if they can be part of a group that possesses immense power, then the ideas which they fight for are of little to no importance. The Most brilliant part of this book is the ending. (spoiler alert, or maybe not) There is barely a single character with which things go well. Either, they die, or they are put to jail, if not that, they suffer for the rest of their life. These things ring true today, and the repercussions are the same that we see with the coup attempt in Turkey for example. While not necessarily his most philosophical or psychological work, this is still an immense masterpiece, and while Dostoevsky's criticisms were true back then, i believe they are even more relevant today.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.