Customer Reviews

The Village of Stepanchikovo: And its Inhabitants: From the Notes of an Unknown (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Village of Stepanchikovo (sometimes translated as "The Friend of the Family"), a comic novel by Dostoevsky, is set during the first two days of the visit of the narrator, Sergey, to the estate of his uncle, Yegor Rostanev.  The affairs of the estate have largely been taken over by Foma Fomich Opiskin, an arrogant pseudo-intellectual who has ingratiated himself with Yegor's mother.  The main conflict of the novel, into which Sergey finds himself embroiled, centers around the attempts of Foma's mother and Yegor to marry Yegor off to a wealthy dimwit and drive out the governess, whom they suspect of being the object of Yegor's affections. 

The novel primarily emphasizes the characters of Yegor and Foma.  Yegor is one of Dostoevsky's stock "meek types" (in the same vein as Myshkin in The Idiot, Sonia in Crime and Punishment, and Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov) and is quick to be self-effacing and lie down in awe before anyone even seeming to have more knowledge of the world than he.  This opens the door for Foma, who despite Yegor's status as head of the household takes every opportunity to insult Yegor and impose his own will--in an amusing example of his excesses, one Thursday he demands that everyone in the household pretend that it is actually Wednesday.  Foma, incidentally, is based partly on Nikolai Gogol, and as translator Ignat Avsey's annotations show, many of Foma's statements were inspired by the infamous Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends, in which Gogol exposed himself as a peasant-hating reactionary.

Considering how short it is (just under 200 pages), the plot of the work is fairly engaging, and I certainly found it a pleasant read.  However, I was disappointed that, despite its billing as Dostoevsky's longest comedic work, once I got past the first couple chapters I really didn't find the novel particularly funny.  Apparently Dostoevsky initially envisioned it as a play but made it into a novel for financial reasons.  I can see how it might be more entertaining as a play, as Foma and several other characters could be quite humorous.  As it stands, since it's narrated by Sergey, who is understandably indignant about the state of affairs at Stepanchikovo, Foma's tyranny over the estate comes across as pathetic, not amusing.  Dostoevsky was of course a genius and remains my favorite author, but it seems that in the genre of provincial comedy Gogol was his superior.  If you're interested in something by Dostoevsky with a lighter tone than his most famous works, I'd recommend The Gambler or Uncle's Dream over this novel.

All in all, The Village of Stepanchikovo is certainly not boring, and Avsey does a very good job with the translation, introduction, and notes, but unless you're really a fan either of Dostoevsky or of 19th century Russian provincial novels, I frankly don't see much of a reason to choose this particular work.

This book is very different from the rest of Dostoevsky's production, primarily because it is a satire and not a tragedy. The narrator is Sergey, a young man who goes to visit his uncle at his isolated estate. The uncle is an extremely meek and impressionable man, who is dominated by a pretentious, ignorant and despotic pseudo-intellectual named Foma Fomitch, a master of sentimental blackmail. Foma is an arribist who has everybody in the estate under his capricious control, a situation which astonishes and irates Sergey. Hilariously absurd situations degenerate into the pathetic, as Sergey gets dismayed about everybody's inability to perceive Foma's stupidity and fakeness.

Nevertheless, despite the radically different mood of this novel, compared to Dostoevsky's rest, a fact remains: the Russian people seem to behave abnormally in any circumstance, and to be full of deep emotional contradictions and complexities. Read it for a different taste of Dostoevsky's literature.

This is the third book of Dostoyevsky I've read in the ongoing immersion experiment. Before starting, I strongly suggest that anyone interested in Dostoyevsky should read Joseph Frank's masterly five volume biography/literary criticism/russian cultural history immediately. I owe all of the background presented here to Frank's "Years of Ordeal" (why ... is it out of print?).

Thomas Mann had claimed that the dominating personality in the book, Foma Fomich Obispin, is "a comic creation of the first rank, irresistible, rivalling Shakespeare and Moliere." Now I read this book, and that was not at all my evaluation. Mann's comment obliges me to delve a little deeper into the text and circumstances.

Synopsis: Sergey, a young stugent, goes to visit his uncle's estate. He thereby stumbles into a total Bedlam; he sees that his extremely meek and kind-hearted uncle, Colonel Rostanev, is held in thrall both by his fatuous and vain mother and most of all by Foma the charlatan. There he learns that Foma had acted the buffoon for a now deceased general but now he relishes tormenting his benefactor, the Colonel, by playing the part of a morally righteous man. Foma's theatrics erode the patience of both Sergey and his uncle until it explodes with a surprising denouement.

Foma can be best described as a Gogolian Tartuffe in a Dickensian setting. The Gogolian parentage in Foma is apparent in his name (Obispin means a "slip of the pen"). He is also a parody of Gogol himself and his works. Like Moliere's Tartuffe, he is a moral charlatan, expounding lofty principles that he himself flouts. Dostoevsky was definitely familiar with some Dickens, and the generally one-dimensional cartoon-like nature of most characters gives an unmistakeably Dickensian feel.

No one will doubt that these are excellent ingredients, but is this '3' better than '1'+'1'+'1'? I don't think so. I'm not familiar enough with Gogol or Moliere's oeuvre to comment in detail, but at least in comparison to Dickens, the sum total seems to me watered down. I think Rostanev can be thought of as a more gullible Russian Pickwick (a bit forced), but comparison with the "Pickwick Papers" comes out to Dostoevsky's disadvantage. More damning is the fact that both Avsey, the translator who wrote a good introduction here, and Frank, in "The Years of Ordeal", more or less rate this book highly because it points to possibilities in Dostoevsky's future masterpieces. In other words, the work by itself cut off from possibilities is not as interesting. This is telling.

So why is it inferior to "Pickwick"? My opinion is this: escapism. Stepanchikovo is a little too idyllic, the people are by and large too simple, and there is something of a poised unwillingness to confront the nastier side of life. Shouldn't Dostoevsky have expounded on Nastenka's poverty and plight (or would this weaken the novel)? What about the psychology of Mizhinchikov who will blossom into an evil flower called Svidrigailov in "Crime and Punishment"? It is very unkind to suggest this, but considering the very trying circumstances in which this book was written - most notably marital dissatisfaction - perhaps Dostoevsky's wish for a more fulfilling life got the better of his superb psychological skills.

Some defence is necessary. The psychology of Tatyana is well-explored. A woman whose mind is so benighted in self-aggrandizing romance that when she finally emerges from poverty to newfound riches is unable to shake them off - this is classic Dostoevsky.

But in summary I would recommend this book only to the die-hard Dostoevsky fans. I notice nothing flagrant in the translation (NOTE: I know no Russian), so it is not the fault of the translator. So if you really want to see the middle stage in the evolution of a great author, you should read this. Otherwise, just go tackle "Crime and Punishment". In fact, EVERYONE should tackle "Crime and Punishment"!

The Village of Stepanchikovo, previously translated as The Friend of the Family, is significantly below Fyodor Dostoevsky's more famous novels but essential for fans, as it shows the seeds of his greatness in several ways and is quite valuable and enjoyable in itself. In addition, numerous differences from more representative work may well pleasantly surprise those not fond of the latter.

Dostoevsky began writing the novel in forced exile, and it is one of the first things he published on returning, preceding his famous prison memoir The House of the Dead. The harrowing experience of course profoundly changed his life, but anyone expecting this to reflect the dark circumstances will be taken aback. Surprisingly, even shockingly, considering that Dostoevsky is known for unflinchingly dark works focusing on the soul's most perilous depths, this is essentially comic. Highly influenced by Gogol, Dickens, and Cervantes, influences Dostoevsky always claimed but which are very hard to see in later work, it was first envisioned as a comic play and shares many elements with one. The novel thus lacks his startling later originality, but the author performs surprisingly well on this limited stage. The comedy is simply brilliant; I lost count of how many times I could not read for laughing so hard, and it took great self-control not to wake my sleeping wife. Close readings of later Dostoevsky show that he always had a comic element, but his humor became ever darker; here it is positively riotous - at times even near-slapstick. On top of this, his famous realist tone is absent in favor of something very nearly farcical. Even so, and despite the fact that Dostoevsky's style was still developing, his brilliant dialogue was already here in great degree. As in later works, an astonishing amount of the novel consists of dialogue, and its greatness is far more than anyone has a right to expect from a comic work. In addition, and unlike more representative work, the novel is very fast-paced with loads of conventional suspense; it is indeed nothing less than a fun read. This is probably his most entertaining work on a pure surface level and certainly his funniest.

The Village is therefore bound to disappoint anyone looking for later works' dense philosophical speculation and penetrating psychological insight, but it is important for showing that Dostoevsky had considerably more range than is generally recognized. I believe the novel is unfairly overlooked, but it would be too much to order a full reevaluation of his work; indeed, though unique among his writings, it also in many ways continues prior work and anticipates later. For example, despite being exiled for political subversion, his early works' overt political content is here in somewhat veiled form. Dostoevsky was appalled at Gogol's conservative turn, and The Village in many ways satirically lambastes him, even alluding directly to several writings. More importantly, themes later brought to fruition are here in embryo, particularly an emphasis on Jesus-like resignation as the answer to Russian malaise.

This is done primarily via characters, of which there is a wealth of great ones. Nothing like later works' psychological depth is attempted, but the cast's size and diversity is truly remarkable for such a short work. Clearly influenced largely by Dickens, Dostoevsky gives his cast an astonishing array of eccentricities; much of this is comic, but there are also numerous subtleties. Even minor characters are memorable, but the main two are simply unforgettable. One, Rostanev, is comically hapless but also an exaggerated version of Dostoevsky's ideal Russian; a clear forerunner of the author's famous Idiot, he is meek, self-effacing, humble, and generous. Many have seen him as representing the Russian people's essential goodness. At the other end is Opiskin, one of Russian literature's immortal characters. He is nothing less than one of the most thoroughly loathsome and uniquely evil characters ever - hopelessly vain, absurdly selfish, and in every other way incorrigibly ridiculous. This leads to much comedy, especially in the contrast with Rostanev, but he also represents much that is dark. Here we begin to see a true break with Dostoevsky's influences and a move toward his famous existential blackness. Opiskin represents human nature's basest facets - an early instance of Dostoevsky's near-unparalleled insight. Yet we must not be too quick to condemn, as he symbolizes a dark truth hidden at humanity's very core. If it is too much to say he is more sinned against than sinning, and even if it is impossible to forgive or extenuate, it is surely true that he acts as he does at least partly because he was treated the same. A truly noble person like Rostanev could of course overcome this, but there are very few such people; frightening as it is to think, the average person is far more like Opiskin. We see this deep down in our psyches even as we laugh. Thus, as much as many characters despise him, none can fully write him off; he is in a sense pitiable but also supremely fascinating. Hate him we almost certainly will, but ignore him we cannot. This is one of several reasons that many have seen him as representing the tyrants perennially dominating the essentially meek Russian people as personified by Rostanev. Amusing as Opiskins may be from a distance, they are potentially terrifying; we laugh only in self-defense, even if we do not know it. Dostoevsky's ability to put all this in a comic novel without being distracting or overly didactic is truly notable and greatly admirable.

One should certainly read Dostoevsky's major works first, but anyone alive to his genius - or who fails to see it elsewhere - should stop here eventually.

This highly spirited character comedy turns around an impudent schemer, who became the real master of a household through his `ties' with the mother of an estate owner, `uncle'. The latter is a credulous, irresolute weakling, who is terrorized of giving offense. He is completely mystified by the confident of his mother, who is not more than an arrogant, bullying parasite, but a master in psychological blackmail.
Other important characters are a young heiress, whom the family wants to couple with `uncle' in order to save the estate, and a young girl who is in love with `uncle'.
The whole bunch around them, are mainly intriguers and vipers, who are using `uncle' as a punching ball.

In one of his first novels, Dostoyevsky shows already that he is a master painter of psychological warfare, in depth character sketches, complicated intrigues and hilarious scenes with embarrassing confrontations.
Like in all his earlier work, one can find here the basic brushes of the great characters in his major novels. One thinks here immediately of `The Idiot'.

In his excellent introduction, which should be read as an afterword, the translator I. Avsey explains that the character of `uncle' is a portrait and an attack on Gogol, because of his reactionary comments in `Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends'.

This book is highly recommended to all lovers of world literature and all fans of Dostoyevsky.

This is a great novel about a family. The characters form a community of relations and hangers on in a setting that is essentially a great house. An interesting device used by Dostoevsky is that everyone at a scene comments on what is happening or has happened, or 'Everyone puts in their two cents'. The telling goes beyond the drawing room conversation. The reader reaches a level of suspenseful concern about the vicissitudes of fortune of the various characters that can bring a successful, fortunate character down on his/her luck or can alleviate misfortune. At the end, however, Dostoevsky relieves the readers' ennui with a synopsis of what the future held for the characters.

The Village of Stepanchikovo is indeed a very strange work for those familiar with Dostoevsky's works. His psychological novels inform our understanding of Russian society and, at the same time, his works transcend their cultural boundaries to reveal truths of human nature. One could go on and on about how great a writer Dostoevsky is. That being said, the Village of Stepanchikovo is an odd book indeed. One could consider this novel his homage to Gogol, a stab at comedy. Although not entirely successful in and of itself, the novel is an important early sketch, raw material to be used in building his masterpieces. In addition, the story moves at a great pace and is never boring. Overall, I found it to be quite entertaining. The novel probably is not a classic but rather quite an enjoyable story.

Hmmm... One doesn't expect Dostoyevski comedies but such is this book. It's filled with laughable, even ludicrous, situations. Ol' Fyodor really has a talent for creating characters you wish to see punished, and I think few wouldn't care to give Foma Fomich a kick in the butt. Always unpredictable, Dostoyevski does it again in this relatively short but thoroughly entertaining novel. It's definitely worth the time you'd spend reading it.

The Village of Stepanchikovo is an example of Russian satire at its best. Through melodrama and one dimensional characterization, Dostoyevsky underlines how absurd the Russian people were a century ago.

The narrator rushes home to stop an arranged marriage that a beloved uncle has orchestrated for him. The uncle however, is masking his true feelings for his nephew's betrothed, but he is powerless to express his true feelings for fear of judgement from his family.

The ending may disgust the reader, but is strangely comforting.