ŷ������

This is the discussion thread for Demons by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, our Old School Classic Group Read for July 2018.

Spoilers allowed here.

Please feel free to discuss anything you wish, relating to the book and let us know what you thought :)

I'm 2/3 in to the book and look forward to discussions. What I find shocking is how little things have changed. Shortly after this a lot of what the movement wanted to do was done by the communists. And today we have a society that resembles very much the one that obviously Dostoevsky preferred, where the Russian Church is the spirit of the nation and the foundation of its character. We have come a full circle.

Where should one start? There is so much to talk about here. First before I go into the topics. I think the censored chapter should have been in the book. It is essential if one is to understand what drives Stavrogin. It is also beautifully written. I loved the dialog between Stavrogin and the monk Tikhon about the meaning and the value of his confession.

As to the themes of the book. I'm really don't agree with Dostoevsky here. His views on the unity of nationalism and faith and how important these two things are, rings very false to me. It has however become the new mantra of Russia so this book should be a Bible for them.

It is obvious that Dostoevsky is not found of anything that is not pure Russian. He mocks those who imitate other cultures and borrow ideas from other countries (which ironically should exclude Christianity). He is especially not found of liberalism,
nihilism, materialism, empiricism, rationalism, positivism and atheism. He is so convinced of the danger of these isms that he really never gives them a fighting chance. Maybe because he had been sentenced for being a radical before and did not dare to show much sympathy. Anyway, I find this hurts the book.

Another thing that hurts the book is that there are just way too many characters and a weak storyteller. I wish he had told the story from the perspective of Stavrogin. I liked that character and I felt Dostoevsky understood him.

As always Dostoevsky knows how to write dialog about religion. I loved those chapters even though I find the argument sometimes weak. The idea that you are yourself a God if you deny God is a tired one. But it is an understandable view from the perspective of a religious person and says more about Dostoevsky than it does about those who don't believe. I did however love the idea of preaching the Gospel even if you don't believe in it, just to create meaning.

There are many more themes to talk about, like the constant hammering on the nature of women, but I'll stop here and look forward to hearing from others.

It's been so long since I read this book I hardly feel qualified to comment. I found Devils the most difficult of D's big books to get through: it took three separate starts. So what stands out from old memories?

The narrator is the old pedigogue and forgotten scholar, to timid to lust upon the woman who supports him. It's ironic in a way that he may be responsible for most of the violence in the book. His own son neglected and sent away without love becomes a radical and a murderer. And then the boy, Stavrogin, he tutored with ultra-liberal ideas becomes a sensualist and debaucher bereft of conscience or self control.

For me, the reunion scene between Shatov and his estranged and pregnant wife is the only tender moment in the story: Shatov is so forgiving and she and he make plans for a new future together. Then he goes out in the next scene to the meeting of the "cell" and gets murdered: pointlessly: to scare the others. 350 pages before the first touching scene and then immediately the character is snuffed away.

There are no heroes in this book. - )

Mark wrote: "For me, the reunion scene between Shatov and his estranged and pregnant wife is the only tender moment in the story: Shatov is so forgiving and she and he make plans for a new future together. Then he goes out in the next scene to the meeting of the "cell" and gets murdered: pointlessly: to scare the others. 350 pages before the first touching scene and then immediately the character is snuffed away."

Yes that is a beautiful scene. And yes the book is very depressing and had to get through. I started many years ago and gave up but decided to give it another try this time around. Not D's best book but I did like it and it has some amazing quotes.

Thank you, Thorkell! I'm not sure I would call the book depressing. Though all the major works have a certain grimness to them. I'm not sure what his books are about? I think they're fun to read: another good Russian story-teller: but you do need a certain fortitude to get through them. - )

I have read the book about 2 years ago, but didn't really get it. My review probably says it all, I copy pasted it here:

"I am sure this is a very interesting story with profound characters.
However, I think I lack the historic knowledge to understand the situation the characters are in and thus fail to understand the characters.
I plan to read this book again in 20 years or so."

I'm not sure I can contribute anything more than that, but I'll follow the discussion to hear what you think.

Petrichor. Your plan to re-read The Devils is an excellent idea! - )
Personally, I think the story runs ok without too much context. The pedagogue has influenced the education of two young men. His own son becomes a radical and a murderer, his quasi adopted son is immoral and dishonorable. The rest is decoration and intrigues.

Great question! I'd say put it off. It makes a decent epilogue. - )

I am about 15% into the book.

“a bunch of crazy characters�� Oh, it is going to be hard to beat Crime and Punishment in my opinion, but I already like it better than Brother Karamazov. I could have used there were a little less people to keep track off.

But Varvara Petrovna and Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovenskii - that pair! How she (view spoiler)[ arranged his marriage and at the same time forces him to not propose. (hide spoiler)] that is so crazy. Only an author like Dostoevsky could pull something like that off.

About 45% read. What a strange book. Almost nothing has happened, but he is building and building. Always the same reference to something about to happen. But what?

I will read all of it - no doubt about that. I was just thinking that even for Dostoyevsky standard the word to action ration is unusual high. But he has these wonderful persons, especially Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovenskii. His son, Pyotr, and Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin are also very interesting. The way Pyotr speaks that requires a writer like Dostoyevsky to make that plausible.

Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin: What is driving him? Is he really a nihilist? Really trying to live that everything has the same value or just trying to convince himself? He could marry��. What will Dostoyevsky use him for? To show that people with no moral foundation can be extremely dangerous?

Andrey Antonovich von Lembke just entered the picture. And I am stating to guess what sort of thing could happen from having a character like him in his position.

I want to read another Dostoyevsky book just as good as Crime and Punishment. It probably does not exist. Depending on how things develop it seems like a 3-star or maybe 4-star read.

My edition (a Danish translation from 1996) has the chapter "At Tikhon's" in the book - not as an appendix - but as an ordinary chapter.

I am at 80% now.

Matt wrote: "��.Russia’s move toward emancipation of the serfs (basically their slavery system) coincided with America’s move toward emancipation of the slaves. It was like a world wide movement had happened ..."

He, he. Denmark was a little bit ahead here. The Stavnsbånd was a serfdom-like institution, and it was gradually abolished as part of agricultural reforms starting on 20 June 1788.


Thorkell wrote: “Another thing that hurts the book is that there are just way too many characters��

I completely agree. And most of them has three names, most of them used independently. Some even have nick names. And on top of that different ways to spell them in Danish and English. For example Pjotr = Pyotr. Not a big difference, but at the same time Stavrogin is not the same as Stavrogina.

Thorkell wrote: �� I wish he had told the story from the perspective of Stavrogin��

I like it as it is. It is like Stepan Trofimovitch was the anchor figure in the first part moving on to Pyotr Stepanovich. I like having Stavrogin lucking around not really knowing what he is doing and why and what Pyotr wants him to do. It keeps me guessing.


“And yes the book is very depressing��

Chilling. In more than a few places. The descriptions of extreme communist regimes - supposed to be a parody (I guess). Killing people to lower the education level (Cambodia), every one spying on each other “for stability�� (DDR).... Even the worse parodic nightmare came to live.

Also how much damage a small extremist group can make by just spreading chaos. Could that happen today?

Done!

The last third of the book was the best. In particular Shatov and his wife and the final meeting between Kirillov and Pyotr Stepanovich.

After finishing the book I read the analysis on Wikipeada. There are many interesting things, amount other I finally understood the title of the book:

the demons are "that legion of isms that came to Russia from the West: idealism, rationalism, empiricism, materialism, utilitarianism, positivism, socialism, anarchism, nihilism, and, underlying them all, atheism

There is one thing I really don’t understand - can anyone help?

What is the thing about the cigar?

At the beginning of the book :

He had only just gone in, and in restless hesitation taken a cigar, and not having yet lighted it, was standing weary and motionless before the open window, gazing at the light feathery white clouds gliding around the bright moon, when suddenly a faint rustle made him start and turn round. Varvara Petrovna, whom he had left only four minutes earlier, was standing before him again. Her yellow face was almost blue. Her lips were pressed tightly together and twitching at the corners. For ten full seconds she looked him in the eyes in silence with a firm relentless gaze, and suddenly whispered rapidly:

“I shall never forgive you for this!��

At the end and 20 years later:
“Do you remember the cigar?��

“My friend,�� he faltered, overcome with horror.

“That cigar at the window in the evening �� the moon was shining �� after the arbour �� at Skvoreshniki? Do you remember, do you remember?�� She jumped up from her place, seized his pillow by the corners and shook it with his head on it.

What on earth is going on here? It must be really important for her to be so angry about it after all those years.

Stepan Trofimovitch : Is he Kirillov opposite?

He is an atheist, so he should have a will of his own (according to Kirillov’s sort of reasoning). But he does not have any will at all. It seems like he never makes any decisions at all. The last chapters are the extreme consequence of this: He journeys, but other people decide where to and how. And what he eats and drinks, and where he sleeps - all decided by other people. At the very end even if he is Christian or not is decided by other people.

I wonder what Dostoyevsky want to tell us? Or is it just the simple thing that being an atheist does not automatically imply you have free will?

About the cigar�� I interpret this scene as as suggesting Varavara's anger and humiliation that Stepan Trofimovich didn’t ask for her hand in marriage that evening, even though she may not have accepted anyway.