Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

"Dostoevsky is finished. He will no longer write anything important." is what one of the editors commented on this novel, which was written as an attempt to re-enter in the literary world after his exile and absence for almost a decade. Sadly, for the editor, he could not be more wrong (and thus chimes in The Grand Inquisitor with the Devil himself as a nightmarish dream).

The Village of Stepanchikovo, like Uncle's Dream, is a comedy. The characters so created, though in a comedic tone, mirror the reality of the obnoxious duplicity in the name of virtue and honour.
Fomo Fomich being the centre of it all, he is everything wrong, but even in him there could be a philosophy which might support the deluding tantrums of this man. Or perhaps we are judging him wrong, perhaps he genuinely believes himself to be noble and generous; all his actions aligned to this fantasy of his being? Well it is for the reader to judge. I loved to hate his eccentricities yet Dostoevsky gave him my favourite quote from the book,

If you want to know what I've been suffering, go to Shakespeare. In his Hamlet, he describes the state of my soul.

Yegor, the Uncle, is another intriguing character, who is central to the entire story. He is noble in its very literal sense, which tends towards idiocy. But even through his submissive meekness, he shows some strength of character occasionally, specially when he is not directly involved, again solidifying his nobility.

In the narrator, we find a young intelligent man, who is profound and learned but vain in his intellect, which is probably a jibe at his own younger self, making the character more vivid. Sergey Alexandrovich, is mostly a spectator and hardly participates in the flow of the story, except the reason for his arrival. It could be attributed to his shyness and good-humoured sense, who though advises the chief actors but never participates completely.

Nastasya, in her brief appearances, is strong and proud, which makes me wish to have been able to know her more, but that wouldn't have helped the mystifying aspect of hers, needed for the plot.

This satire of a hypocrite society takes many digs at the intellectual delusions of various educated men, the obsession with a foreign culture, the illusionary belief of self-sacrifice in the guise of selfishness, the literary intellectuals and many more.
Fun fact, one of these digs were made on 'The Contemporary' (whose editor has been quoted above) as a reply to various jeers made by them on Dostoevsky during his absence.

The story started off somewhat plainly but the second half makes up for it.
In Dostoevsky's own words (and a perfect way to sum it up)
"The long story that I am writing for Katkov displeases me very much and goes against the grain. But I have already written a great deal, it's impossible to throw it away in order to begin another, and I have to pay back a debt."

which eventually transformed to

"I am convinced that there are many weak and bad things in my novel; but I am convinced - I stake my life on it! - that there are very fine things. They sprang from the heart. There are scenes of high comedy that Gogol would have signed without hesitation.

And I am convinced too that though tedious and lagging at parts, it does have elements worth acknowledging. The second part of the novel feels more like a Dostoevskian tale though very different with its comedic elements, the ending being extremely unique in his literary world.

(Also, three more to go and I would have read all sixteen of his novels/novellas.)