Customer Reviews

Devils (The World's Classics)

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I've always felt that fiction is like a window to the past, and with "The Devils," Dostoevsky gives us a clear glimpse at the underground politics brewing in Czarist Russia. At the same time, his propensity to write about criminals and people with criminal hearts is nowhere more emphasized among his major novels than in this one. There is not one character I could identify as a traditional hero, not even the semi-anonymous narrator, who relates the novel's events with the impartiality of a security camera; they are all antiheros -- a room full of Raskolnikovs.

The novel concerns a small band of Russian intellectuals, atheists, socialists, anarchists, and various other rabble who are distributing subversive leaflets in an attempt to incite the proletariat to revolt against the government. They are a motley group, destined to fail because they lack general competence, organizational skills, a clear agenda, definite plans, and even uniform ideas. The only thing they have in common is that they don't like the way things currently are in Russia and intend to change them, violently if necessary.

Among this group we meet Nicholas Stavrogin, an obnoxious, insensitive young man who is only looking out for himself and is not above having affairs with his friends' wives. The group's prime mover and instigator is Peter Verkhovensky, whose father Stepan had been Nicholas's tutor and is still living platonically with Nicholas's widowed mother, one of the wealthier citizens of the town in which the novel takes place. The group's rank-and-file who figure most prominently into the plot include the suicidal Kirilov, a former member (and potential informer) named Shatov who just wants to put it all behind him, a useless drunkard named Lebyatkin who acts as the group's stooge, and an escaped convict named Fedka who becomes the group's henchman.

That many of these people are dead by the end of the novel is not as surprising as how they get that way. The plot is built around intrigues, disloyalties, and the type of drawing-room confessions and revelations that characterize the best mysteries. It's not difficult to guess that there is a juicy secret about Lebyatkin's crippled, mentally disturbed sister Mary, or that the elegant fete arranged by Julia Lembke, the Governor's wife, will culminate in a spectacular, outrageous, and perhaps deadly climax; Dostoevsky likes sensationalism and never misses a chance to use human frailty and folly as hosts upon which the morally hollow feed like parasites.

Dostoevsky's description of these men as "devils" is a biblical allusion to the book of Luke, translating Christ's power to drive the devils out of a possessed man into a herd of swine to the cleansing of Russia of its nefarious political elements. It would appear that "The Devils" is Dostoevsky's effort to demonize the soulless, devilish radicals who have no moral underpinnings and who would replace everything he considers good about Russia (namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church) with Western ideas. There is an obvious parallel to the Bolshevik Revolution of nearly half a century later, which shows that such Socialist sentiment had been bubbling under the Russian mainstream for many years prior to its twentieth century emergence. In that sense, this is a prescient novel of historical and political interest.

Just as Shakespeare wrote what came to be termed "problem plays" (Measure for Measure, The Winter's Tale, etc.) Dostoevsky also presents us with a novel that really doesn't fit in with the rest of the cannon. The Possessed (or The Devils or The Demons, depending on translation) is generally regarded as fourth on the list of his major works (The Brothers Karamozov, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Possessed, in descending order).

There is much to commend in this novel, including Dostoevsky's usual superb mastery of characterization. In this instance too, this Russian master makes each character come alive on the page.

One of Dostoevsky's unique qualities is his ability to create diverse, volatile, personalities who are fated to meet at the most inopportune times and in the most combustible circumstances. He builds suspense by characterization, rather than plot, then throws his combatants together in the most marvellous group scenes in literature. In The Brother's Karamazov, such a scene occurs at Zosima's Monastery, in Crime and Punishment, at the wake, in The Idiot, at Mishkin's birthday party, and in The Possessed, this attribute is displayed better than ever, but particularly in the scene where Nicholas Stavrogin and Pyotr Verkhovensky make their first appearances (yes, it is almost half-way through the novel that the main characers are introduced!). Dostoevsky constructs tension as well as any novelist who ever lived.

What is often overlooked in Dostoevsky discussions, however, is the fact that he is a great comic writer, in the tradition of Gogol. If one goes by Auerbach's definition of comedy, for instance, (that a happy ending determines whether a work is tragic or comic) then Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamozov would indeed fall under this rubric. The Possessed presents a more difficult assessment however, particularly the Penguin/Magarshak version which ends with "Stavrogin's Confession." But there is no denying that there is a great deal of humor, of the most sarcastic, driest, Dostoevkian variety, on display in The Possessed.

The Possessed was written in part as a response to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons. Turgenev's "superfluous man" is represented in D's novel by Stepan Verkhovensky, a middle-aged idler who converses in half-French, half-Russian and whose allegiance is divided between the old school and the new. He goes out of his way to sympathize with the nihilist youths he sees gaining the horizon, yet holds onto his "European" cultural ties. In other words he represents what to Dostoevsky at this stage in his career is most reprehensible. By the 1860s D had become a near-reactionary Slavophile, who felt that European influence was an insidious plague that was besieging Russian thought and culture, and that the Fourier-inspired nihilists were sending Russia on a mad troika ride to her doom. He had little use for figures such as Turgenev, who attempted to synthesize European and Russian culture.

In The Possessed, Turgenev is mercilessly lampooned, in the figure of Karamozinov, a character totally obsessed with the figure he presents to society. What most reviewers overlook, however, is the possibility that Turgenev is represented equally by Stepan Verkhovensy and Karamozinov. And actually if one considers Verkhovensky part of the portrait, Turgenev comes across as a more sympathetice figure, divided between his European "free-thinking" and his Russian "faith."

The biggest problem of The Possessed, however, in terms of it being D's "problem novel" is the matter of narration. There is an abrupt shift in the narrative from Part One to Part Two. It is not until page 136 of the Penguin edition that we learn that the person telling the story is a Mr. Anton Lavrentyevich, a civil servant in the provincial town where the action occurs. For Part One of the novel, everything that the narrator reveals could have been gleaned second-hand, as he was privy to all the conversations that related to the events recorded. Suddenly, in Part Two, the narrator becomes omniscient, and relates events and thoughts to which he couldn't possibly have had access . This may indeed be the result of the fact that this novel was serialized, as was the case with most of Dicken's novels, for instance. Perhaps D just lost track of the narrative, or perhaps there was some unexplained purpose behind it, but this is the primary criterion I have for placing this as D's least successful major novel. Despite this flaw, I would still rank this as a "great" work, for it perfectly captures the Russian dilemma of the era depicted, much better, in fact, than D's nemesis, Tugenev, achieved in Fathers and Sons (though his was no minor accomplishment either).

This is an amazing book. Pervaded by Dostoevsky's usual characterization, the author reaches into the souls of his numerous characters as only he and very few others can. This story has Dostoevsky's favorite existential philosophic undercurrents. The story is an account of how the budding socialist revolutionary movement affects one small Russian town. Dostoevsky gives this phenomenon the treatment it deserves - a mocking condescension with an amusing portrayal or people who are drawn to radical movements. The result is a novel filled with humor. The tragedy is is presented as a natural consequence of people who are making mistakes at every step, confusing sensibility for absurdity. That is what their "possession" really is. It is about a whole generation caught up in the materialization and nihilism of the 19th century resulting from the scientific revolution. To me, this book is on par or surpasses The Brothers Karamazov. It may be viewed as either an atheistic challenge taken up in the latter book or as a repudiation of atheism manifested in one level of the latter. Whatever it is, it's more proof that Dostoevsky is the greatest writer who ever lived.

Demons opens up with a brief exposition on the two decade long relationship between the reckless, impulsive poet, Stepan Trofimovich, and the woman who keeps him, the rich, aloof, forever exasperated landowner, Varvara Petrovna. Theirs is a strange relationship, but perhaps not so uncommon then as it would be now. Stepan Trofimovich's reputation lies on the creativity of his youth, now, approaching fifty, these glory days are all but behind him. He has become little more than a celebrated scholar. Varvara loves him, but is waiting for him to declare it, something he will never do. While much given to spouting romantic phrases in both French and Russian at the drop of a hat, he is a flighty, inconsistent man. He loves her very much, but prefers to reveal his feelings to the mostly nameless narrator with moans and groans about his fate.

During this long 'Not an Introduction', we are introduced, also, to the many and varied inhabitants of the small Russian town. Most of the characters - and even many of the very minor ones - are fully fleshed out, with families, backgrounds, desires, thoughts, hopes, dreams, motives. A few in particular stand out. There is Krillov, the man who is determined to end his life not through depression or melancholy, but through a choice, allowing himself to be the first man to have free-will, and thus to become God. But he is burdened with this responsibility, endlessly philosophising with himself through sleepless nights. Shatov, the bitter student, a man who wants to fight God but cannot, who tried his luck in America and failed. Karmazinov, the once-great author, losing his talent and perhaps his mind, inflated by an unjustifiable sense of self-worth. Lebyadkin, the drunken captain with the lame sister, a secret shame he never reveals. Through these characters and more we are able to ascertain the political, philosophical and economical feelings of the times, and every one becomes a fully realised, three dimensional character.

Nikolai Vsevolodovich and Pyotr Stepanovich, a son each to the two characters mentioned above, return to the town after years of being away. Stavrogin (Nikolai) is respected and feared, he carries a dark secret. Verkhovensky (Pyotor) is a mystery, and seems able to worm his way into upper society with ease. As the book develops, the two are involved in ever more intricate schemes, always hinted at and never revealed, while all about the Russians are living their lives. Tracts are written, political meetings are held, Verkhovensky and Stavrogin seemingly the masters of this game, however, in their meetings, it is uncertain which one really knows what is going on, and who is the true power.

In typical Dostoevsky fashion, all emotions are felt perhaps too well, with people moaning and crying and fainting and falling to death from shock. This romantic touch adds greatly to the drama of the story, more so as the plots thicken, intertwine, and begin to be revealed, and as the body count increases, so too does the tension. One of the last chapters, involving Verkhovensky and Krillov, is perhaps the greatest, containing such a breadth and depth of ideas about reality and God as to make one step back and reflect on what he has read. The ideas presented, all throughout the book, are lucid, coherent, and undeniably powerful. Add to this the completely realised characters, and what is left is a brilliant book that looks at the social forces of an ideological revolt under false pretenses, and just what man is prepared to do to gain power. The only negative is that the second to last chapter is a - necessary - disappointment, flatly written and seemingly tacked on, but apart from this, it is one of the greatest books I have read.

This ia a great book with many plotlines, truly entertaining and intellectually stimulating. Despite a characteristic criminal underpinnings, the novel is dedicated to another question which was very important to Dostoyevsky: Are individuals responsible for the ideas they produce. The main character, Stavrogin, is awash with doctrines he recycled from the old toothless liberal tradition. His personal charisma is so great that people around burn up with his ideas and turn into blind fanatics of a particular intellectual fad. The novel's got them all: religious nationalism, self-deifying egotism, revolutionary nihilism, totalitarian elitism. The advent of all these ill-conceived personal philosophies was ignited by the man who has absolutely no faith. While the self-styled anarchists wreak the havoc on a small provincial town, the protagonist has to decide whether he is responsible for people's serious interpretations of the theories he made up as a means of avoiding intellectual ennui. The novel is centered around the final encounter of the passive, aloof, and faithless "intellectual father" and vigorously fanatic "children". Truly captivating and probably the most easily readable of Dostoyevsky's books.

Most readers probably know that the character of the amoral nihilist Peter Verkhovensky is based--not too loosely, either--on the real-life figure of Sergei Nechayev (pronounced neech-aye-eff), who collaborated with the anarchist Bakunin while they were both hiding out in Western Europe. (Bakunin finally learned that Nechayev was a total fanatic who'd stop at nothing--even blackmail, betrayal, and murder--and disassociated himself with Nechayev, warning friends against him.) Nechayev murdered a member of his conspiratorial group, suspecting the victim of betrayal, a scene portrayed in the novel. What most readers may not know is that Lenin was fascinated with the career of Nechayev (who was eventually caught for the murder and extradited to Russia, where he died in prison), called him a "titanic revolutionary," and said that Bolsheviks should try to find everything Nechayev had ever written, and study it. Dostoevsky knew he'd be called a "reactionary" for implying that such ends-justify-means fanaticism--terror and immorality in the name of a "better world" to come--must end in utter destruction. But he nevertheless went ahead and wrote this novel to illustrate this theme. And Lenin, admiring Nechayev, did exactly what the great novelist foresaw--he created a monstrous tyranny that destroyed Russia, perhaps (as we are now seeing) even beyond repair.

We admire Orwell's 1984 for its insights and innovative ideas, but THE DEMONS turned out to be the more accurate and prophetic book of the two. Russian novels tend to be long on characterization and short on plot--as well as very lengthy--but don't let that deter you from reading this masterpiece.

Incidentally, I once queried the companies who write student guides for novels (i.e., Cliff's Notes; Monarch Notes) about why no such guide had EVER been written for this book (even though they do exist for Dostoevsky's CRIME AND PUNISHMENT), and even though the collapse of Communism should have produced a renewed academic interest in THE DEMONS. The reply was that professors assign Dostoevsky as class reading less and less, and that very few assign this book, so there wouldn't be enough of a market for such a guide. Class reading, hell -- the profs know full well how devastating this novel would be to their own efforts to instill their own utopian political beliefs in their students. As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, everything that happened in 20th century Russia was predicted in this novel. This was what originally inspired me to read it, and he was right.

This is a work of art. All the agonoies, uncertainties, and ecstasies of being Russian are dealt with in this book by a true master. Dostoevsky was a relgious conservative, something very taboo in American society today but there can be no doubt to the genius of this books vision. The pitiful and terrifying nature of evil. Stavrogin is one of the most malevolent characters in liturature, a true Anti-Christ. The creation of a universe by a man-god the one God and the pagan gods of carnal nature all clash in this work in a way that is unsurpased.The depth, the passion of this work can drive one to maddness...Dostoyevsky's vision of Russia's Messanic mission all come togeather in the end to create an absolute...beauty.

That's right, I consider this book the best that I have ever read. Never before in my life have I read a book so gripping, so compelling, with such lively, vivid, and insightful characterizations. "Crime and Punishment" and "Brothers Karamazov" are excellent yes, but I consider "Devils" to be Dostoevsky's masterpiece.

Where to begin? The book is about many things, but it is not easy to just pin down one specific thing it's about. It's about the lives of many people in a typical Russian town of the time, and how these lives are affected by a few newcomers and a secret "society" that may or may not exist.

Among the wonderful characters are the perpetually nervous and harried Stephan Trofimovich, who feuds constantly with the shrewish Varvara Petrovna. Nikolai Stavrogin is the hero of the book, a most Byronic hero: tortured by a checkered past, mentally unstable, intelligent, cunning, and very dashing. But you cannot predict this character's actions with any reasonable accuracy. Peter Stepanovich is such a sly, cunning, and devious villain that he could could give Iago "evil lessons" for lack of a better way of putting it at the moment. And Marya Timofeyevna, the mentally ill cripple with the heart of gold who holds secrets of her own, what of her?

And that's just a few of the marvelous characters that make up this book. But not only is this book intellectually stimulating, it is hilarious as well. From juvenile pranks conducted by the society, from black, absurd social commentary and humour, to the unflattering cariactures painted of (contemporary author of the time) Turgenev by Dostoevsky, "Devils" quite literally had my sides aching from laughter.

Read this book. It may take a while to get into, but once you do, you'll be glad you did.

This is the best ever - I love this author's work but this is definitely his highest accomplishment. In this novel you can see his influence on Dickens. Stavrogin is a villain to end all villains. Yes, this is about revolution, but it is also about unrequited love (and how people will go to the ends of the earth making fools of themselves over it). Some of his other books are kind of downers, but this one is delicious exciting, like a Boschian rollercoaster ride. Go for it - you won't be disappointed!

This is the most "dostoevskian" of all Dostoevsky's novels. Seething with grotesque and violent carnival scenes, with metaphysics on rampage ( a Russian specialty and oxymoron ), "The Devils" remains a unique species. Superficially a satyrical and political novel, it evolves and unfolds into incredible cross-breed of parable and pneumatological/visionary drama. The principal characters (Stavrogin, Verkhovensky, Kirilov, Shatov, Darya,..) have by far transgressed limits of "normal" human experience and are acting their obsessions in a hallucinatory quasireality which remains more "real" than any constructed by standard realistic procedures. Hailed as the first serious political novel, even prophecy of the Russian revolution- this is a judgement I cannot assent to. Communist revolutions were executed by iron-willed ideologues who didn't have any scruples, let alone spiritual vexations; monomaniacal mystics like Kirilov or hysterics like Verkhovensky jr. have nothing in common with efficient bureaucrats and human machines described in works by Pasternak, Koestler or Solzhenitsyn. All in all, "The Devils" remains a unique bodying forth of nihilist malaise that was to become the dominant 20th century "state of mind". If it is a prophecy, then the subject is upheaval of the whole texture of Western cultural/spiritual/political life, not the wreckage of Czarism.