تسخیرشدگان: جن‌زدگان

by Fyodor Dostoevsky, علی‌اصغر خبره‌زاده (Translator)

یک توطئه‌ی سیاسی در یکی از شهرهای ایالات و معرفی قهرمانان با تعصبی زایدالوصف همچون موجوداتی پست و بی‌خیال که از همه‌ی خصایص بشری بی‌بهره‌اند. مسایلی که در این کتاب مطرح می‌شود به فرد بستگی ندارد بلکه منظورش تمام ملت است. قهرمانان کتاب واقعاً جن‌زده و تسخیرشده‌اند، زیرا زندانی یک قدرت مرموزند که آن‌ها را به ارتکاب اعمالی وادار می‌کند که لیاقت و سزاواری انجام آن را ندارند. شیاطینی نامشخص‌اند که قهرمان واقعی می‌باشند و انسان‌ها به منزله‌ی عروسک‌های خیمه‌شب‌بازی‌اند که به فرمان آن‌ها به جنب‌وجوش درمی‌آیند. هیچ یک از کتاب‌های داستایوفسکی پیچیده‌تر از این کتاب نیست، زیرا ابهام و آشفتگی، همه‌ی قهرمانان را در هم می‌فشرد و وقایع با تعقید بیان می‌شود. این داستان با یک رشته حوادث مرموز که در ظاهر با وقایع دیگر ارتباط ندارد پایان می‌یابد.

Genres: Classics, Fiction, Russia, Russian Literature, Literature, Philosophy, Novels

998 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1871

About the author

Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский (Russian)

Works, such as the novels Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.

Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons(1872) .

Many literary critics rate him among the greatest authors of world literature and consider multiple books written by him to be highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He is also well regarded as a philosopher and theologian.

See also:
Russian → Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский
French → Fédor Dostoïevski
French → Fiodor Dostoïevski
Spanish → Fiódor Dostoyevski
Portuguese → Fiódor Dostoiévski

Reviews

[MJ Nicholls · Rating 5 out of 5]

RE-READ REVIEW (MAY 2026):

A long overdue re-read of Fyodor’s masterpiece of stumblebum radicals. A complex and uncompromising bruiser of Russian fiction, a compelling sprawl of vicious, grasping, narcissistic, and tragic characters trying and failing to shape a post-serfdom Russia. One of the maestro’s best.

OLD NON-REVIEW:

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.

[Vit Babenco · Rating 5 out of 5]

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 independently, prefer to follow this fashion blindly and those people are eventually used by the others… They just become a 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 world…

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

“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!

[Luís · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Demons" is arguably one of the most successful books I know. The intricate and detailed reflection that constitutes this extraordinary novel and the strange, dark, and mysterious characters make this work a unique story. It is both a beautiful work of art and a magnificent background work. In The Demons, Dostoevsky gives us a masterful reflection and a magnificently composed book, which takes up the procedures of the serial novel. It's a beautiful meditation on God, violence, suicide, and dogmas that trap (such as communism in the book) and lead to the worst. I know only one author who has done works similar to Dostoyevsky, by their style, manner, characters, and intrigues: Shakespeare. Although, of course, with these complex and dark characters and intricate intrigues, only Shakespeare resembles this author; still, Dostoevsky surpasses Shakespeare! Perhaps I will say that one was a playwright and the other a novelist; they cannot be so alike. But there is something scenic in The Demons, and it is no coincidence that Camus made a part of it. The form and substance are infinite perfections. Great work.

[Darwin8u · Rating 5 out of 5]

“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.

[Piyangie · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

This poem by Alexander Pushkin, quoted in the epilogue, provides an excellent preamble to the story. Devils or also called Demons or Possessed, is Dostoevsky's platform to address political and moral nihilism of his day. Dostoevsky saw the damage both these concepts were doing to society. Political nihilism was paving the way to the destruction of the established structure of governance while moral nihilism was unsettling the established conventional behaviors and beliefs. Dostoevsky was not a prig, but he was an anti-nihilist. He saw nihilism as a dangerous concept that will destruct the future of Russia.

Dostoevsky was a believer, but he was liberal minded toward the atheists. However, he was positively antagonistic towards nihilism as can be observed in the story. He was cynical towards these moral and political nihilists and saw them as misguided enthusiasts whose idea of reform was the destruction of established political and social institutions along with the accepted social values and principles. To Dostoevsky, they were the seeds of anarchy.

Dostoevsky employs five main characters to weave his story and establish his point. We first meet Stepan Trofimovich, a liberal idealist. He was once a celebrated professor whose liberal ideas have unwittingly contributed to the cultivation of nihilism in his younger audiences. His liberal ideas take root in both his son, Pyotr, and Nikolai Stavrogin, the son of his benefactress. Stepan plays a large role in the story, both seen and unseen. His liberal ideas go through the test of time and Dostoevsky shows that the aged Stepan doesn't share the same views as the young Stepan. And what is more? Dostoevsky also shows that while both Stepan’s "students", Pyotr and Nikolai, embrace nihilistic ideals, their convictions differ from one another.

Nikolai Stavrogin is the chosen hero of the story. He is an intelligent, handsome, strong, and fearless atheist, who, though outwardly refined, is morally decayed with his nonbelief in good or evil. Dostoevsky portrays Nikolai with such a psychological intensity exposing the innermost cruelty of a man of intellect. Both Pyotr Stepanovich and Ivan Shatov, the two conflicting characters, are disillusioned by Nikolai. Pyotr sees him as the perfect figurehead for a socialist revolutionary movement, and he tries to lure Nikolai to his camp. Shatov sees him as one who can inspire Russia to a "Christian regeneration". Dostoevsky shows that Nikolai is nothing but a hypocrite, who is waving between the two ends, belief and nonbelief, as it suits him. (The censored chapter "At Tikhon's" which was luckily included in my edition establishes this point well.)

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

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

Dostoevsky is addressing many questions throughout the story. Stepan is representing the 1840s liberal idealists, who were the first to shoot against faith and beliefs. This baton was next taken by the nihilists, two decades later, in the 1860s. They were taking further steps toward the degeneration of society. Pyotr represents the nihilists. Dostoevsky shows that this isn't socialism, nor is it progress. It is mere fanaticism and anarchy. Then Dostoevsky goes to show that even the moral and political nihilists are divided in their convictions, as was shown through Nikolai and Pyotr. Nikolai's and Pyotr's ideas don't go hand in hand. Their ambitions differ. Nikolai has no desire for a change of governance like Pyotr. The present condition of life is good for Nikolai as a landowner himself and as an influential wealthy mother behind. And in the middle of all this moral corruption stands those of faith, friendless and vulnerable as Shatov.

Shatov's death is caused by Pyotr's hand. And what is more? Even though Pyotr's accomplices get punished, Pyotr doesn't. What Dostoevsky was driving at with these incidents cannot be fully fathomed. But I couldn't help wondering whether he was making a gloomy prediction for the future of Russia. It almost seems that Dostoevsky saw that, in the name of socialism, anarchy, which eventually turns into despotism, establishing itself, suppressing the voice of those with opposing views, and Christian heritage being supplanted by nihilistic idealism.

Devils is, undoubtedly, the most brutally written work by Dostoevsky. The fiery and intense psychological portrayal of all the characters made the reading quite hard to endure at times. But what is interesting is that I was both shocked and fascinated at the same time. Such opposite emotions can be roused only by a masterpiece. And alongside Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, Devils is a masterpiece written by an unparalleled genius.

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

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 5 out of 5]

„- Și pe Stavroghin l-a devorat ideea, trecu peste remarcă Kirillov...
- Cum adică, ciuli urechile Piotr Stepanovici, care idee? Ți-a spus el ceva?
- Nu, am ghicit-o singur: Dacă Stavroghin crede, nu crede că crede. Iar dacă nu crede, nu crede că nu crede” (Partea a III, VI: 2)

Roman sumbru cu întîmplări cînd amuzante, cînd senzaționale, populat de fanfaroni (Stepan Trofimovici Verhovenski), impostori (Piotr Stepanovici Verhovenski), oameni de bine (naratorul / cronicarul G-V), oameni de prisos, inocenți (Maria Timofeevna Lebeadkina, Dașa), pseudo-revoluționari nihiliști, atei, isterici, fanatici (Șatov), deliranți (Kirillov), bețivi, caraghioși (Lebeadkin), criminali (Fedka-ocnașul), slavofili, slavofobi etc. Toată această faună „demonică” se rotește în jurul lui Nikolai Stavroghin. Latura murdară, josnică a protagonistului este, desigur, mai presus de cea luminoasă. Ar putea opri șirul de crime, dar nu catadicsește s-o facă: „Nu i-am omorît și am fost împotriva acestui omor, dar știam că vor fi omorîți și nu i-am oprit pe ucigași. Pleacă de la mine, Liza...” (Partea a III-a, III: 2).

În pofida faptelor relatate în Demonii, cititorii nu-l pot antipatiza întru totul pe Stavroghin, cum nimeni din orășelul Skvoreșniki nu e dispus s-o facă.

Ei își amintesc cu un zîmbet poznaș întîmplarea de la club: „Unul dintre venerabilii noştri seniori ai clubului, Piotr Pavlovici Gaganov, un om în vîrstă şi cu anumite merite în viaţa publică, avea obiceiul inocent de a adauga aproape la orice cuvînt cu multă aprindere: 'Ei bine, eu nu mă las dus de nas!'. Mărog, fie... Nikolai Vsevolodovici [Stavroghin], care stătea cam deoparte singur şi căruia nimeni nu i se adresase, se apropie deodată de Piotr Pavlovici şi, cu totul pe neaşteptate, dar cu destulă putere, îl apucă de nas cu două degete şi-l trase astfel după el prin sală cîţiva paşi. N-avea nici un fel de resentimente faţă de domnul Gaganov. S-ar fi putut crede că nu fusese decît o ştrengărie pur şcolărească, bineînţeles foarte condamnabilă...” (Partea I, II: 2).

[Bella · Rating 3 out of 5]

actual rating: 2.75 stars

[Katia N · Rating 5 out of 5]

Demons


It is the most powerful novel by Dostoevsky. It is more profound than schematical “Crime and Punishment” and much less preaching than “Karamazovs Brothers”, though the later one is building upon the “Demons”. It is the only big novel by him which contains a strong political element along with the traditional psychology and his religious thinking. Some of the main protagonists are revolutionary terrorists. The similar people would kill the Russian reformist tsar Alexander II just a few years after the novel was finished. Among other things, Dostoevsky demonstrates, how the pure desire of power could corrupt soul.

I do not have sufficient knowledge of the world’s history, but I think the revolutionary sects in Russia of the second half of the19th century have become the pioneers of using the terror for their purposes in its modern meaning of the word. Anna Geifman, the American scholar, in her book "Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia" shows a lot of similarities between the Russian terrorists and nowadays’ terrorists:

“Converting concrete grievance into messianic aspirations and practical purposes into holy causes, they operate within distinctive parameters of a theology of Armageddon a final battle between good and evil in which at stake in no less than universal salvation.”

It is a very modern novel in many other ways. The methods those terrorists (on the radical left) use could be a primer for the radical right who supported Trump in the recent elections: fake news; making everyone confused and disoriented; spread rumours as true facts and play on liberals’ impotency in certain issues; marginalising and discrediting the authority - all these "tools" are described in the book. I was shocked to find so many analogies with our time.

However, the main purpose of the novel (imho) to show what a spiritual emptiness can do to a human nature. How unresolved individual existential crisis and the search for completeness might lead to a disaster. For those who read the novel for the first time, it is an imperative to read the chapter “At Tikhon’s” after the end of the part ii of the novel. Currently, they publish it as an Appendix. It was censored out by the Russian authorities at that time on the basis of its “unbearable realism”. It is a shocking and revelatory chapter summarising the essence of the novel. And it is impossible to understand and appreciate the novel with leaving the reading of this chapter to the end.

In spite of all the bleakness, it is a very funny novel. I’ve read it for the first time when I was 17. And then it was shocking and tragic. When I’ve read it now, it has come across more like a farce. Generally, one needs to read Dostoyesky novels during the one’s teens, while you ask all those big questions about the meaning of life and look for the answers…. I think that is why Nabokov was quite cold about Dostoevsky: according to him, Dostoyevsky is not an artist.. May well be, I personally do not totally share his religious and historiographic views. But his work creates a huge impact on a different level - it is not about language, it is about daring to go deep into the darker side of human nature and coming back from there constantly balancing…

I finish with the quote from the article by Rowan Williams: “What makes it (the Demons) so well worth reading now is its unsparing vision of what destructive forces come into the world when there is a vacuum of spiritual understanding. “

По-русски

Известное высказывание, что история первый раз происходит как трагедия и повторяется второй раз как фарс. Так и для меня второе прочтение этого романа. Первый раз почти в детстве меня шокировали и трогали трагические аспекты. Сейчас - все более хаос и фарс. Жаль, что этот роман скорее всего в современной России может быть использован властью для маргинализации любой оппозиции и защиты статус-скво.

А вообще роман про “меня ужаснула великая праздная сила, ушедшая нарочито в мерзость”. - слова Тихона из опущенной главы.

[Fernando · Rating 5 out of 5]

"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.

[jude⋆°. (IS EDITING REVIEWS) · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have a deep appreciation for classic literature (and for Fyodor Dostoevsky), but this particular piece nearly put me to sleep.

[Henry Avila · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[BookHunter M ُH َM َD · Rating 4 out of 5]

هل الله موجود؟ فاين هو مما يحدث إذا؟ ماذا نفعل للنهوض بروسيا و اللحاق بأوروبا؟
هذه هي الأسئلة الثلاثة التي دارت حولها الرواية برغم أن هذا الكتاب ليس كتابا في اللاهوت و لا مباحث في الفلسفة و ليس أيضا تمهيد لسيجموند فرويد. إنه القدير دوستويفسكي يتنبأ بمستقبل روسيا لعدة عقود قادمة.

في كل مكان و في كل زمان منذ بدء الأعصر. لم يمثل العلم و العقل في حياة الشعوب إلا دورا ثانويا لخدمة الحياة. و سيظل الأمر كذلك إلى نهاية العصور. فإنما تتكون الشعوب و تنمو بدافع قوة مختلفة عن هذا كل الإختلاف. بدافع قوة عليا مسيطرة يظل أصلها مجهولا و لا يمكن تفسيره. هذه القوة هي الرغبة المتأججة في الوصول إلى نهاية. و انكار هذه النهاية في الوقت نفسه. هي تأكيد الحياة تأكيدا مستمرا لا يتعب. و انكار الموت.
هي روح الحياة. هي ينابيع المياه الدافقة التي تهددنا رؤيا القديس يوحنا بأنها ستغيض يوما ما. هي مبدا الجمال على حد تعبير الفلاسفة. أو هي مبدأ الأخلاق على حد تعبيرهم أيضا. أما أنا فأسميها ببساطة أكثر: البحث عن الله. إن هدف كل شعب في كل حقبة من تاريخه هي البحث عن الله فقط. عن إلهه. عن إله هو الذي يؤمن به على أنه هو الإله الوحيد الحق. إن الإله هو الحقيقة المركبة من الشعب كله. منذ وجوده إلى نهايته. في كل زمان و في كل مكان. كان لكل شعب إلهه الخاص. و لم يحدث حتى الأن أبدا أن كان لجميع الشعوب أو لعدة شعوب إله واحد. مشترك بينها جميعا. و حين تأخذ الشعوب بأن يصبح لها ألهه مشتركة فذلك علامة موت لهذه الشعوب. و حين تصبح الألهة مشتركة بين عدة شعوب فإن الألهة تموت. كما تموت الشعوب و يموت إيمانها.

يبدو السؤال الأول لوهلة قصيرة سؤال عبثي أو على الأقل تقريري و لكن الأحداث تبين لنا أنه استفهامي بحت و أن الأراء في تلك النقطة متباينة أشد التباين بين أبطال الرواية.
فمهما تكلف البعض الإلحاد و حث نفسه على نكران الدين و انتزاع جذورة إلا أنها ليست بالمهمة السهلة أبدا.

لم أستطع أن أنتزع نفسي دفعة واحدة من كل ما كان قوام حياتي منذ طفولتي. من كل ما كان معقد آمالي و موضوع حماساتي. من كل ما جعلني أسكب دموعا تفيض بالكره و البغض. انه لمن الصعب على المرء أن يغير آلهته.

لم يبدأ تزعزع إيمان الشعب الروسي من العدم سيما و انه كان ايمانا متجذرا يضربون به المثل. و لكن كما قال ماركس و تابعيه: فتش عن الاقتصاد.

إذا انهارت أوروبا فستكون تلك كارثة كبرى فعلا. أما عندنا في روسيا فلا يرى المرء ما الذي يمكن أن ينهار على وجه الإجمال. لن نشهد حجارة تتساقط و إنما سيتداعى كل شيء وحلا. إن روسيا المقدسة عاجزة عجزا مطلقا عن إبداء أية مقاومة لأي شيء. و بفضل الإله الروسي ما يزال الشعب الروسي هادئا بعض الهدوء. و لكن المعلومات الأخيرة تدل أن الإله الروسي لم يبق له كثير من قوة. و أن إلغاء الرق قد أوشك أن يسقطه. و هو قد هزه هزة قوية على كلٍ.

منهم من بلغ به الإحاد مبلغ الرغبة في انتزاع الإرادة من الإله الذي ينكر وجوده من الأساس.

- إذا كان الله غير موجود فانا الله.
- هذه بعينها هي النقطة التي لم أستطع أن أفهمها منك في يوم من الأيام. لماذا أنت الله؟
- إذا كان الله موجود كانت الإرادة كلها له. و كنت أنا عاجزا عن كل شيء في خارج إرادته. أما إذا لم يكن موجودا فالإرادة كلها إرادتي. و علي أن أنادي بإرادتي الخاصة.
- إرادتك الخاصة! و لماذا عليك أن تنادي بها؟
- لأن الإرادة كلها الأن إنما هي إرادتي. هل يعقل أن لا يوجد على وجه الأرض كلها شخص يجرؤ أن ينادي بإرادته الخاصة في صورتها القصوى بعد أن قتل الله و آمن بتلك الإرادة الخاصة التي له. ان مثل من يعجز عن ذلك كمثل فقير ورث مالا و لكنه لا يجرؤ أن يقترب من الكيس لأنه يعد نفسه أضعف من أن يحق له الاستيلاء عليه. أريد أن أنادي بإرادتي أنا. سأفعل ذلك و لو فعلته وحدي.

و منهم من عاش حياته ينكر الإله حتى إذا أتاه الموت قال إني تبت الأن و تلك لعمري هي طبيعة الإنسان في كل عصر.

يا أصدقائي. إن الله ضرورة لي. لأنه الموجود الوحيد الذي يمكن أن يحبه المرء حبا أبديا. ان خلودي ضرورة لازمة له. لمجرد أن الله لن يشاء أن يرتكب ظلما يطفيء إلى الأبد العاطفة التي اشتعلت في قلبي حبا له. و أي شيء أثمن من الحب؟ ان الحب فوق الموجود قيمة. إنه تاج الموجود. فكيف يكون ممكنا أن لا يخضع له الموجود؟ إذا كنت قد أحببت الله و سعدت بهذا الحب فهل ممكن أن يطفئنا الله أنا و حبي و أن يغرقنا في العدم؟ إذا كان الله موجودا فأنا خالد. ذلكم هو إعلاني لمبادئي.

نتعلق جميعا بالإله لأننا نحتاجه. من يؤمن منا و من لا يؤمن. و نرتعب تماما من فكرة عدم وجود قوة عليا نخضع لها و نلتجأ إليها في الشدة حتى و إن تناسينا تأثيرها في الرخاء.

يكفي أن أتصور أن هناك شيئا أعدل مني بما لا نهاية له. و أسعد مني بما لا نهاية له. حتي يملأني ذلك حنانا واسعا و أن يملأني شعورا بالمجد. كائنا من كنت أنا. و فاعلا ما فعلت. لا يحتاج الأنسان إلى سعادته الخاصة كاحتياجه إلى أن يعرف و يؤمن في كل لحظة أن هناك في مكان ما سعادة مطلقة و سلاما لجميع الناس و لكل الأشياء .. قوام قانون الحياة البشرية كله أن يكون في وسع الإنسان أن ينحني أمام شيء عظيم عظمة لا نهاية لها. فإذا حرم البشر من هذا الشيء الذي لا نهاية لعظمته رفضوا أن يعيشوا و ماتوا في اليأس. اللانهاية و المطلق لا غنى للإنسان عنهما. كما لا غنى له عن هذه الأرض التي يعيش عليها.

و من النماذج المعبرة في الرواية عن الإنسان بكل ما فيه من صراعات: شخصية ستافروجين الذي يتأرجح دائما بين اليقين و الإلحاد و بين العبقرية و الجنون.

- إني لعلى يقين من أنك ترى أن هذا الإيمان أجدر بالاحترام من الجحود الكامل.
- بل الإلحاد الكامل أجدر بالاحترام من عدم الاكتراث.
- هوه! ما أعجب هذا الكلام! إنك لتدهشني حقا!
- الملحد إلحادا كاملا واقف على الدرجة الأخيرة التي تسبق الإيمان الكامل (أن يخطو هذه الخطوة الأخيرة أو لا يخطوها فتلك مسألة أخرى). أما الذي لا يكترث و لا يبالي فإنه لا يملك أي إيمان. و ليس في نفسه إلا شيء من الخوف أحيانا. هذا إذا كان المرء حساسا.

من هو البطل في الرواية؟ سؤال يستحق أن نتوقف عنده.
أنا شخصيا أعتقد أن البطولة الجماعية التي توزعت على الجميع لم يقصد منها إلا أن البطل الحقيقي هو روسيا التي ستستطيع أن تروض الشياطين و تجعلهم في خدمة مصالحها و لكن تسخير الشياطين لم يكن أبدا فكرة صائبة أيتها الأم العجوز روسيا.

انه من أجل أن يحل المسألة الاجتماعية حلا نهائيا. يقترح تقسيم الإنسانية قسمين غير متساويين. فعشر ينال الحرية المطلقة و ينال سلطة بغير حدود على تسعة الأعشار الأخرى. و تسعة أعشار يجب عليهم أن يفقدوا شخصيتهم و أن يصبحوا أشبه بقطيع. فإذا ظلوا خاضعين خضوعا تاما بغير حدود أمكنهم أن يصلوا شيئا فشيئا بعد سلسة من التحولات إلى حالة البراءة البدائية. إلى شيء يشبه جنة عدن الأولى. مع بقائهم مضطرين إلى العمل. إنه يجرد تسعة أعشار الإنسانية من إرادتهم و يحولهم إلى قطيع بواسطة التربية.

يلمح فيسكي إلى الأعوام الثلاثين التي مرت على انضمامه لحركة ثورية سجن بسببها عدة أعوام في بداية حياته و تكاد هذه الرواية تصور جزء من تجربته مع الخلية التي ارتبط بها و غيرت مجرى حياته تماما من ضابط مهندس إلى سجين سياسي ثم إلى كاتب يشار له بالبنان.

لا حاجة إلى التعليم. كفى علما. حتى بدون العلم .. تكفينا الموارد التي نملكها الأن ألف سنة أخرى. و لكن علينا أن نقيم الطاعة. ان الظمأ إلى التعلم قد أصبح منذ الأن ظمأ أرستقراطيا. و ما ان تمكن الأسرة أو الحب من القيام حتى تنشأ الرغبة في التملك على الفور. سوف نقتل هذه الرغبة. سوف ننمي الإدمان على السكر. سوف نغذي الافتراء و التخرص. و السعاية و النميمة. سوف نغرق البشر في فجور لا عهد لهم بمثله من قبل. سوف نقتل كل عبقرية قبل أن تولد. سوف يكون جميع الناس متساوين. مساواة مطلقة. نحن نعرف مهنتنا و نحن أناس شرفاء. ذلك كل ما نحتاج إليه.

لا تخلو الرواية أيضا من لمحات السخرية الاجتماعية التي يتميز بها دستويوفسكي و تأتي في السياق بلا شبهة تعمد

إن كل امرأة تدخر لزوجها بعض الخطايا القديمة لتستعملها في الوقت المناسب.

كان خضوع الجموع لبطرس ستيفانوفتش خضوعا أعمى تميزت به الحركات الراديكالية سواء اليمينية منها أو اليسارية و خصوصا حركات العنف المسلح.

كانوا يشعرون جميعا أنهم أشبه بذباب سقط في نسيج عنكبوت ضخم. فكانوا يشعرون بسخط و حنق و لكنهم في الوقت نفسه يرتعشون خوفا.

من هو فيسكي في شخصيات الخلية الخمسة؟ هل هو الضابط الصغير محدود الذكاء الذي يكتفي بكتابة محاضر الجلسات و تنفيذ الأوامر فقط أم هو شاتوف أم شيجالوف أم بطرس البغيض نفسه؟

ان كل منكم يقع على عاتقه عبء كبير يجب أن يحمله. و تقع على عاتقه مهمة ضخمة يجب أن يحققها. انكم مدعون إلى تجديد مجتمع منهوك فاسد عفن. فلتكن هذه الفكرة حافزا يبث فيكم الشجاعة و يحضكم على العمل باستمرار. إن جميع جهودكم يجب أن ترمي إلى انهيار كل شيء. الدولة. و أخلاقها. سنظل وحدنا واقفين. نحن المهيئين منذ مدة طويلة لأن نستلم السلطة. فأما الأذكياء فسوف نجعلهم ملحقين بنا. و أما الأغبياء فسوف نركب على ظهورهم. ما ينبغي أن يقلقكم هذا. يجب علينا أن نعيد تربية الجيل الحالي. لنجعله جديرا بالحرية.

من أهم شخصيات الرواية و أكثرها حظا في السرد ستيفان تروفيموفتش الذي استحوذ على جانب كبير من الأحداث و ليس ذلك غلا لأنه الشيطان الأكبر و ان لم يشارك في الشيطنة بصورة مباشرة إلا أن الوسوسة هي الوظيفة الرئيسية بدوام كامل لكل شيطان منذ زلة آدم و حتى النهاية.

لقد ظللت أكذب طوال حياتي. حتى حين كنت أقول الحقيقة. لم أتكلم يوما في سبيل الحقيقة. بل في سبيل نفسي. انني أعلم هذا من قبل. و لكنني لم أر إلا الأن أن .. آه .. أين هم أصدقائي الذين طالما آذتهم صداقتي؟ لقد آذيتهم جميعا. جميعا. هل تعلمين؟ أنني ربما كنت أكذب حتى في هذه اللحظة. نعم. انني أكذب. هذا أكيد. المهم أنني أصدق ما أقوله حين أكذب. و أعسر الأمور أن يحيا المرء بدون أن يكذب. نعم. نعم. ذلك هو أعسر الأمور قاطبة.

تسيطر على دوستويفسكي نزعة انجيلية محافظة ترسخت في وعيه منذ سنوات اعتقاله و خاصة رؤيا يوحنا التي استوحى منها عدة قصص قصيرة غير هذه الرواية المتميزة التي بشرت بمجيء الشياطين و رحيل يسوع و لكنها تنبأت أيضا بأن العكس لابد أن يحدث يوما ما.

إن هؤلاء الشياطين الذين يخرجون من المريض ليدخلوا في الخنازير هم جميع الجراح و العفونات و القذارات و الشياطين الصغيرة و الكبيرة التي تراكمت خلال القرون في مريضنا الغالي العظيم. في روسيا. نعم. في روسيا هذه التي أحببتها دائما. غير أن فكرة رائعة و إرادة جبارة ستهبطان عليها من السماء كما هبطتا على ذلك المجنون. و ستتخلص من جميع الوساخات و النتانات التي ستطلب هي نفسها أن تدخل في الخنازير. بل لعلها قد دخلت منذ الأن. سوف نهوي من أعلى الجرف إلى البحر كمجانين مسعورين. و سوف نهلك جميعا. و هذا خير. إننا لا نصلح لغير ذلك. و لكن المريض سوف يشفى. و سيجلس عند قدمي يسوع. و سينظر الجميع إليه مدهوشين.

تجد انطباعاتي عن الجزء الأول هنا

تجد انطباعاتي عن الجزء الثاني هنا

[Vanitha Narayan · Rating 5 out of 5]

My fifth book of Dostoevsky .If I thought Dostoevsky could not impress me more than he already has,I was a fool!!!!. This guy can never stop dazzling me!!.

5 stars?? No 5000 wouldn't be enough!!!!

Demons(The Possessed) is his most depressing and disturbing work, left me so emotionally exhausted that I may take a long time to recover from it(May be I will never recover!!).
What a masterpiece this is!!.It would take a lifetime to come to terms with these ideas.
Called a prophetic novel about Russian revolution,this guy foresaw it 40 years before it happened!!.This man’s ability to look into depths of human mind is unparalleled. The more I read of him,the more I worship him and his brilliant mind!!

The story is set in 1860’s, during great political and social unrest in Russia .He explores what happens when man embraces an idea(half formed) mindlessly and resorts to violence to make that idea a reality. There is the political/social side to it and also spiritual/psychological side,both equally chilling and disturbing.Nobody can execute such an idea the way Dostoevsky does.He gets down to the bottom of the problem and leaves you gasping for air with his amazing insights into human mind!!!.

Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky is the main architect of the chaos that grips the town,an atheist and a nihilist who believes Russian society can benefit from these ideas.He forms a group ,gains control over them with his cunning calculative mind.The chaos that follows is too disturbing.More disturbing is the way the mindless violence is executed and the motivations of the people involved in it.
While Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky represents the political/social side of the narration,Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin represents the spiritual/psychological side of it.Young, handsome and most fascinating with an enigmatic demeanour that intrigues all,but a deeply disturbed and troubled mind,a soul truly possessed by a demon.His presence is felt throughout the novel,even though he is not physically present for most part of the narrative.All the other characters view him as someone greater than themselves,something of an idol,but some characters like Shatov,see him for what he truly is.The narrator’s description of his physiognomy will give us a perfect picture of his true self.
Another important character is Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky ,representing the liberal idealists of 1840’s Russia.A very comical figure(I laugh at the very mention of his name),the one who finally realises the essence the idea of “the possessed”.
We follow Pyotor’s political exploits and Nikolai’s personal/spiritual exploits in parallel and they seamlessly blend together at many points.All the other characters play very significant roles.Shatov,Kirillov,Lizaveta,Liputin,Marya,Darya,Varvara,Yulia and many more.As always with Dostoevsky’ narration,these characters lend the polyphonic voices for his profound ideas.
The final collapse of the society that is gripped by the “Demons’ and also the downfall of its characters is brought out with such brilliance that it simply blows your mind away!!!

The narration is incredibly comical for a novel dealing with such deeply disturbing ideas,not sure if it was deliberate ,but it balances the atmosphere well,giving some respite for the reader yet never taking anything away from the amazing profoundness of those ideas.
The most interesting and shocking thing is that a chapter called “At Tikhon’s” which has Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin’s confession was never included in the original book.It was rejected by the editor.It is included in the appendix section of the book in recent publications.That chapter is the most disturbing and also,according to me the best chapter!!!.It simply contains the essence of the idea Dostoyevsky was trying to explore.
Dostoyevsky’s way of unravelling the psychological depths of human mind is breathtaking.Layer by layer ,idea by idea ,he opens a million cans of worms in your mind and like I said,it would take a lifetime to come to terms with them.The way he unsettles my mind and the way he somehow always manages to settle it back more solidly than before, is unbelievable.
Whenever I talk about his writing,adjectives simply fail me.His is a truly amazing ,beautiful mind!!!!
Bravo Dostoevsky!!!!!!!!!

[Kiran Dellimore · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is hard for me to put into words everything that I experienced during the roughly month-long period in which I read Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. It was a masterfully written, extraordinary novel which engrossed me completely from start to finish, despite its staggering length (over 750 pages).

It is even more difficult for me to know where to begin when describing this great opus of Dostoevsky. I was astounded by complexity of the narrative and the level of detail infused into the myriad of colorful characters. It is nearly impossible to fathom how Dostoevsky managed to weave together this plot and keep track of the complex web of relationships between characters, from the start to the end of the novel. The plot twists and turns were dramatic at times (almost scandalous), which left me sometimes astounded, while at the same time curious to find out what would come next. Essentially Demons covers an extremely turbulent and uncertain time in mid-19th century Russia when the serfs have been freed, the aristocracy is in decline and radical socialist ideals are spreading insidiously foreshadowing a dark future for Russia.

The title, Demons, seems to be a reference to the demons that Plague Russia itself based on its tumultuous history through the centuries. The devil within is often more dangerous than the one without:
"These demons who come out of the sick man and enter the swine - these are all the sores, all the contagions, all the uncleanness, all the demons, large and small, who have accumulated in our great and beloved sick man, our Russia, over the course of centuries, centuries!"

But perhaps I would take it a step further. These demons also refer to the individual characters (representing all walks of life in Russia) who each seem to be plagued by their own afflictions, their own demons. Inside of their heads or due to the shocking behavior of their family members or close relations they are tormented as if tortured by demons.

Demons is perhaps not for the faint of heart. It is quite a heavy novel touching on topics such as suicide, murder, infidelity and even pedophilia (if one dares to read the Appendix of the book which included an additional 'missing' chapter that Dostoevsky had originally written, however, it was rejected by his editor for being too obscene and salacious). So I would warn prospective readers of these triggers. However, I do still highly recommend this novel, due to the literary finesse and imagination of Dostoevsky in penning this masterpiece of Russian literature.

[Carlo Mascellani · Rating 4 out of 5]

SECONDA RECENSIONE: Cinici, freddi, nichioisto e narcisisti, cupi quanto una gelida notre d'inverno, Verchovenskij jr e Stavrogin incarnano i demoni di cui il romanzo parla. Se il prima sfuma il male di cui è intriso a pieno benrficio della causa comunista e di rivoluzione, il secondo appare una piccola monade chiusa in se stessa, che solo a volte, nei suoi incomprensibili comportamenti, sembra lasciar trapelare un barlume d'umanità e pentimento. Uno dei più scuri romanzi di Dostoevskij, un sunto della sua filosofia politica ed esistenziale. Un'occasione da non perdere per entrare nel mondo sofferto di questo grande autore.


PRIMA RECENSIONE: Ne L'idiota, Dostoevskij ha tratteggiato, con Miskin, l'uomo perfettamente buono. Ne I demoni, con Stavrogin, sembra aver creato una sorta di nemesi, tratteggiando un uomo perfettamente crudele. Ma se si guarda oltre l'apparenza, si colgono le mille sfaccettature del personaggio, i lati crudeli, i lati buoni, i lati umani o insoliti. Alla fine si finisce per amare di.più Stavrogin rispetto a Miskin, perché meno perfetto, più vero, più"umano". Nel bene, come nel male. Miskin è un'idealizzazione (riiscitissima). Stavrogin è concretezza, è la realtà di un uomo che ha trascorso la vita cercandosi. Senza mai riuscirci, però...

TERZA RECENSIONE: I buoni romanzi, anche se datati, hanno sempre qualcosa di nuovo da dire a ogni rilettura. E ora mi chiedo se le figure dei Demoni principali, Piotr, Kirillow e Stravogin non rappresentino, nella loro follia, le uniche persone vere e vive in un mondo che pare composto solo da macchiette e stereotipi. In un mondo di regole ferree, finta moralità, inganno, ipocrisia, assurde convenzioni accettate senz'alcuna critica, le loro sembrano essere le sole filosofie in grado di restituire all'uomo la libertà che una società moralista, conformista e oppressiva sembra aver soffocato. Forse i "folli" vedono più lontano di quanto possano fare i "rispettabili borghesi"?

[Ilse · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

Thoughts and notes in the meantime got lost in the chaos of life, but not the imprint this masterpiece left on me, nor the truth of this observation on the miracle that is the birth of a child.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.”

[Mark André · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first sentence of Albert Camus’ Forward to his 1959 play redacted from Dostoyevsky’s novel reads, “The Possessed is one of the four or five works that I rank above all others.”

A second reading. Typical Dostoyevsky: mean, selfish, evil people doing mean, selfish evil things to each other. Hidden behind the political intrigue of the younger generation fomenting the overthrow of traditional society is a subtle story of sons without fathers being seduced by modern ideas. How much is parenting responsible for the unwholesome actions of the adult child?

[Mika · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick Recommendation

Demons is perfect for these who seek a political satire with philosophical themes. It is inspired by a political murder that took place in 1869 in Russia. Dostoevsky makes witty comments about radical movements. In the process, he mocks the radical people and expresses the strong opinion that atheism and other ideologies are a curse brought by ‘demons’ upon society.

It might has a slow start, but it's thought-provoking long after one finished it.

Introduction

First of all, this was the darkest Dostoevsky novel I read so far. A close second is Crime and Punishment which I initially didn't think would be surpassed. Second of all, its crucial to obtain historical knowledge before reading this one. Its based on a political murder that took place in 1869 in Russia. His own opinion about the matter is very clear and important to know, so that one can understand the meaning behind ‘Demons’. Lastly, it's very dark. A reason for that is the doom-like atmosphere presented to the reader. It shows the true horrors of political extremism and how violent and cruel revolution can be.

Compared to Dostoevsky's other novels, this one doesn't offer any sense of hope or escape. Its atmosphere is grim, gloomy and hopeless. It's a lot about brutal acts such as physical attacks and murder. It requires emotional resilience, to not feel overwhelmed or triggered by it in some way as many dark aspects of life are included.

And why are they fools? They’re not such fools; nowadays nobody’s mind is his own. Nowadays there are terribly few distinct minds.

To put it together, it's psychologically intense, has a chaotic start, intense political intrigues, it has a sense of tension, dread and hopelessness and finally it require background knowledge to fully grasp the idea Dostoevsky had with this one.

Despite all that its absolutely worth reading as his commentary on Russian history and society is very profound and the themes presented are still urgently relevant to this day. In addition, it offers deep insights into philosophical ideas and shows the human nature of suffering. (It's also spiritual).

If you want to overcome the whole world, overcome yourself.

Pacing

The start is dragging a lot, in my opinion. I had a hard time to get into this one, but the middle part catches up and the ending has a great impact. I would encourage anyone who has the same problem at the start to at least read half of the second part before considering dropping this book.

Writing Style

Dostoevsky uses many satires to bring his point across which can only be understood by those who have historically knowledge. Especially about the political murder event that this book is based on.

I didn't really get them even with a bit background knowledge, but it isn't crucial to understand them to get what the book is trying to tell. Though it can definitely enrich the reading experince.

Themes

Main Themes
Explores political ideologies, chaos and society's breakdown by demons who cause chaos and destruction. The consequences are social and political decay.

It's characterised by corruption, desperation, violence, despair, and moral decay.

Other themes
The consequence of abandoning faith, of past actions and of political intrigues. Other ones are marriage (of convenience) and being possessed by ideologies.

Characters

Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky

[...]you have no right to betray the common cause on a word of honor! Only swine and people bought by the government act like that!

Pyotr represents radical socialism and revolutionism. He's the most prominent character in this novel and it was fascinating to watch him having a dark nature and how it unravels through the story. Not knowing his next move or true intentions were really scary which made me curious about him even more. Pyotr doesn't immediately show what he is capable of which makes him charismatic and scary at the same time. Though he shows his true abilities when it's important, especially to lead his group. He achieves things most people could only dream of. What makes him so successful is his lack of guilt or remorse. No price is too high for him to achieve his goals. So ruthless. So power-hungry. I love it! He is also unpredictable, making his appearances always feel fresh. Even though I couldn't belive it at first, he also has insecurities. Thus making him a complex and disturbing character, not just a flat one.

There is so much to analyse with this character, making him my favourite. After all, the most intriguing characters in Dostoevsky works are always flawed and I liked him for being flawed. He contains many layers, making him accurate to real people.

(Without him I would have had a harder time to understand the true meaning behind the book's title. He made this read a bit easier to understand).

Slaves must have rulers. Complete obedience, complete impersonality, but once every thirty years Shigalyov gets a convulsion going, and they all suddenly start devouring each other, up to a certain point, simply so as not to be bored. Boredom is an aristocratic sensation; in Shigalyovism there will be no desires. Desire and suffering are for us; and for the slaves—Shigalyovism.

Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin
I somewhat liked him. Seeing not only a character not believe in God but also the decisions and actions driven by a rejection of faith and morals was interesting. Even more interesting was to discover Dostoevsky's own message behind this character.

Slaves must be equal: there has never yet been either freedom or equality without despotism, but within a herd there must be equality, and this is Shigalyovism! Ha, ha, ha, so you find it strange? I’m for Shigalyovism!

He managed to influence many characters in this novel in a way that might sounded right at the start but turned sinister and evil soon enough. My first impression of Nikolai was actually that he is innocent and kind hearted and this impression lasted till the very end. Some might disagree, but compared to Pyotr, he was able to feel real emotions and reflected on his past mistakes. Though he was pretty empty from the inside, making him sometimes appear to be a side character. I wish he could have had a strong will like Pyotr. He is even more charismatic than Pyotr and with a bit more energy and will, he could have influenced other characters even more than Pyotr did.

He felt very detached from everyone and everything around him, but I felt a bit attached to him. Nikolai's beliefs differ from the other characters, making him stand out from the rest.

Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky

Oh, my friend, marriage is the moral death of any proud soul, of any independence.

I didn't like him that much, but it's still worth mentioning him. Pyotr, his son, was able to change society. Stepan, on the other hand, was only dreaming about change but was never able to put his ideas into reality. 'Cause of this and many other things, I wasn't able to like Stepan. He might represented (radical) liberalism, but wasn't quite active in the story to really say that he made an impact. Stepan thinks so highly of himself, but is actually contributing barely anything in this novel. The only interesting part about him was how he was financially dependent on others and his lecture at the end of the novel.

You married out of a passion for torture, out of a passion for remorse, out of moral sensuality.

Outroduction

Well, it might was hard to understand this novel sometimes, but I also learnt many new things. It was really insightful. For instance, I now know what slavophilism is. Before reading, I didn't even know that something like this existed in the first place.

Every nation has its own idea of evil and good, and its own evil and good. When many nations start having common ideas of evil and good, then the nations die out and the very distinction between evil and good begins to fade and disappear. Reason has never been able to define evil and good, or even to separate evil from good, if only approximately; on the contrary, it has always confused them, shamefully and pitifully; and science has offered the solution of the fist.

I was also able to see Dostoevsky's own perspective and opinions about the matter. Although I didn't always agree to them, I still enjoyed to see his opinions be expressed in satirical comments and in characters that embodied different ideologies.

StoryGraph review (analytical approach, with marked spoilers)

Started: 03. December 2025
Finished: 05. December 2025
Wrote the review: 06. - 07. December 2025

[Baba · Rating 2 out of 5]

A group of radicals cause havoc on a town at the behest of their seemingly malignant leader, Verkhovensky. Great comic moments and characterisations y a superb writer. This was deemed Dostoevsky's 'problem' novel and was written as a critique against radicalism; and fares poorly compared to most of his other work, in my opinion. 5 out of 12

[Y · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Firdevs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dostoyevskinin siyasi ve felsefe konularını en derinden işlediği kitabıdır..

[Nikos Tsentemeidis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Άλλο ένα τεράστιο έργο του κορυφαίου Ντοστογιέφσκι, μαζί με το Έγκλημα και τιμωρία, τον Ηλίθιο και τους αδερφούς Καραμάζοφ.

Πρόκειται για ένα πολιτικού περιεχομένου μυθιστόρημα, που στόχο έχει να κριτικάρει τον μηδενισμό στη Ρωσία, και από το οποίο πρόεκυψαν πολλές αναλύσεις όπως π.χ. του Καμύ.

[Come Musica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mamma mia che potenza!!!

Bello, bello, bello!!!

[Ivana Books Are Magic · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is perhaps the most difficult, grim, violent and tragic work by Dostoevsky that I have read so far (and I read an awful lot of Dostoevsky in my life). Despite Demons being a harrowing read at times, I was impressed with this novel in a number of ways. I can sum it up in five points.

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

NOT AN EASY READ- A DISTURBED AND VIOLENT NOVEL THAT WAS BASED ON REAL LIFE EVENTS

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

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

WHY DEMONS IS (FOR ME PERSONALLY ) THE MOST TRAGIC OF ALL DOSTOEVSKY'S NOVELS?
If Demons can be compared to a tragedy, it is still very much a novel. If you can imagine a tragedy taking the form of a philosophical novel set in nineteenth century Russia and written by Dostoevsky, then you can imagine this novel. Reflecting a turbulent era in European history, Demons is one of the darkest and grimmest novels I have ever read. Even if there is a bit of humour in it, it mostly takes the form of irony, cynicism and satire. There are almost no positive personalities in this novel. Those characters that could be described as positive (or at least well meaning) are often mentally ill or passive and unable to help neither themselves nor others. Demons is, in this sense, different from other Dostoevsky's novels. Crime and Punishment has its dark and pessimistic moments and so does the novel Brother Karamazov, but this novel tops them both in terms of tragedy. The Idiot is quite tragic in many ways and distinctly cruel towards some of its characters but still there is hope in it. In contrast, Demons shows no mercy to any of its characters. This novel tops all of Dostoevsky's works with its grimness, pessimism and tragedy. I think it's no spoiler to say that Dostoevsky's novels don't end up with- they lived happily every after. You do expect certain pessimism, realism and naturalism from any writer belonging to literary movement known as realism. Nevertheless, some of Dostoevsky's work are filled with hope and some of his characters find redemption. Not so much in this one. Demons is a deeply depressive and tragic work. For most (if not all characters), there is no redemption and no consolation.

IS DEMONS STILL A RELEVANT BOOK?

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




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

[Andrei Tamaş · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Chris_P · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Atefeh · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Abigail · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The entire law of human existence consists merely in the fact that man has always been able to bow down before something immeasurably great. If people are deprived of what is immeasurably great, they will cease to live and will die in despair. The immeasurable and infinite are just as necessary to man as is this small planet on which he lives ... My friends, everyone, all of you: long live the Great Idea! The eternal, immeasurable Idea!”

Demons is a tale of descent, a descent into political revolution, free thinking and consequent manipulation and madness.

Dostoyevsky crafts a narrative that witnesses the human ability to forgo societal confines, and generate a movement into nihilistic thinking, touching on atheism and liberalism in 19th century Russia. With this, he also generates that sense of brutality and chaos that falls hand in hand with the desire to succeed, to lead a revolution, to garner power and authority amongst a group of likeminded individuals. Each character plays a titular role to this narrative uprising, with varying displays of resistance or blind following, but their relationships between each other are the most fascinating of all. With themes of obsession, and the literary ability to invoke paranoia and shock in the reader as you follow the journey, almost as though you become one member of the group, one of ‘the people’, possessed by the same demons that possess and haunt each character.

This prophetic novel inspires so much thought, so much conflict- you find yourself unsure as to who to support, who do you root for, if anyone? Which philosophy of many would you resonate with? Can you justify the actions of each character?

An experience that will stick with you, as intended.