The last of Dosotevsky's major novels that I read; it was sad to realize there were no more. There is little I can add to the man's genius by way of pithy commentary in a LibraryThing review :-), but I include some of my favorite passages, all thought-provoking, and all either telling relections of his times or ahead of his time.

On atheism:
“A complete atheist stands on the next-to-last upper step to the most complete faith (he may or may not take that step), while the indifferent one has no faith, apart from a bad fear.”

On children:
"In Arina Prokhorovna’s hands a small, red, wrinkled being was crying and waving its tiny arms and legs, a terribly helpless being, like a speck of dust at the mercy of the first puff of wind, yet crying and proclaiming itself, as if it, too, somehow had the fullest right to life….
There were two, and suddenly, there’s a third human being, a new spirit, whole, finished, such as doesn’t come from human hands; a new thought and a new love, it’s even frightening…And there’s nothing higher in the world!”

On enlightenment:
“There are seconds, they come only five or six at a time, and you suddenly feel the presence of eternal harmony, fully achieved. It is nothing earthly; not that it’s heavenly, but man cannot endure it in his earthly state. One must change physically or die. The feeling is clear and indisputable. As if you suddenly sense the whole of nature and suddenly say: yes, this is true. God, when he was creating the world, said at the end of each day of creation: ‘Yes, this is true, this is good.’ This…this is not tenderheartedness, but simply joy. You don’t forgive anything, because there’s no longer anything to forgive. You don’t really love – oh, what is here is higher than love! What’s most frightening is that it’s so terribly clear, and there’s such joy. If it were longer than five seconds – the soul couldn’t endure it and would vanish. In those five seconds I live my life through, and for them I would give my whole life, because it’s worth it….”

On God; I love this passage. I also think it's a reflection of Dostevsky's mind; while he believed that man needed God and that God in fact existed, he also wasn't ever fully convinced.
“…God is necessary, and therefore must exist.”
“Well, that’s wonderful.”
“But I know that he does not and cannot exist.”
“That’s more like it.”
“Don’t you understand that a man with these two thoughts cannot go on living?”

On Government:
“You see, my dearest Pyotr Stepanovich, you call us officials of the government? Right. Independent officials? Right. But, may I ask, how do we act? The responsibility is on us, and as a result we serve the common cause the same as you do. We merely hold together that which you are shaking apart, and which without us would go sprawling in all directions. We’re not your enemies, by no means. We say to you: go forward, progress, even shake – all that’s old, that is, and has to be remade – but when need be, we will keep you within necessary limits, and save you from yourselves, for without us you will only set Russia tottering, depriving her of a decent appearance, while our task consists precisely in maintaining her decent appearance. Realize that you and we are mutually necessary to each other. In England, the Whigs and Tories are also mutually necessary to each other. So, then, we are the Tories and you are the Whigs, that’s precisely how I see it.”

On meaninglessness:
“This little word ‘why’ has been poured all over the universe since the very first day of creation, madam, and every moment the whole of nature cries out ‘Why?’ to its creator, and for seven thousand years has received no answer. Is it for Captain Lebyadkin alone to answer, and would that be just, madam?”…
“Now then, madam, you ask me, ‘Why?’ The answer is at the bottom of this fable, in flaming letters!”
“Recite your fable.”

“’Tis of a cockroach I will tell
And a fine cockroach was he
But then into a glass he fell
Full of fly-phagy…”

“The cockroach took up so much room
It made the flies murmur.
‘A crowded glass, is this our doom?’
They cried to Jupiter.

But as the flies did make their moan
Along came Nikifor,
A kind, old, no-o-oble man…

I haven’t quite finished here, but anyway, in plain words…Nikifor takes the glass, and, in spite of their crying, dumps the whole comedy into the tub, both flies and cockroach, which should have been done long ago. But notice, madam, notice, the cockroach does not murmur! This is the answer to your question, ‘Why?’ he cried out triumphantly. “The cock-roach does not mur-mur!’ As for Nikifor, he represents nature,” he added in a quick patter, and began pacing the room self-contentedly."

On Nihilism:
"Instead of paradise,” Lyamshin shouted, “I’d take these nine tenths of mankind, since there’s really nothing to do with them, and blow them sky-high, and leave just a bunch of learned people who would then start living happily in an educated way.”…
“That’s a lot of nonsense, however!” escaped, as it were, from Verkhovensky….”I think all these books, these Fouriers, Cabets, all these ‘rights to work’, Shigalyovism – it’s all like novels, of which a hundred thousand can be written. An aesthetic pastime. I understand that you’re bored in this wretched little town, so you fall on any paper with writing on it.”…

On Religion:
“The aim of all movements of nations, of every nation and in every period of its existence, is solely the seeking for God, its own God, entirely its own, and faith in him as the only true one…The stronger the nation, the more particular its God. There has never yet been a nation without a religion, that is, without an idea of evil and good…Reason has never been able to define evil and good…and science has offered the solution of the fist. Half-science has been especially distinguished for that – the most terrible scourge of mankind, worse than plague, hunger, or war, unknown till our century. Half-science is a despot such as has never been seen before. A despot with its own priests and slaves, a despot before whom everything has bowed down with a love and a superstition unthinkable till now…”

On Russia, and the "Demons" that descended upon it in Dostoevsky's eyes: nihilism, socialism, atheism, anarchism, etc;
“…These demons who come out of a sick man and enter into swine – it’s all the sores, all the miasmas, all the uncleanness, all the big and little demons accumulated in our great and dear sick man, in our Russia, for centuries, for centuries!…But a great will and a great thought will descend to her from on high, as upon that insane demoniac, and out will come all these demons, all the uncleanness, all the abomination that is festering on the surface…and they will beg of themselves to enter into swine. And perhaps they already have! It is us, us and them…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.”

On Socialism:
"…why is it that all these desperate socialists and communists are at the same time such incredible misers, acquirers, property-lovers, so much so that the more socialist a man is, the further he goes, the more he loves property…"

On the Superman:
“Man is afraid of death because he loves life, that’s how I understand it,” I observed, “and that is what nature tells us.”
“That is base, that is the whole deceit!” his eyes began to flash. “Life is pain, life is fear, and man is unhappy. Now all is pain and fear. Now man loves life because he loves pain and fear. That’s how they’ve made it. Life is now given in exchange for pain and fear, and that is the whole deceit. Man now is not yet the right man. There will be a new man, happy and proud. He for whom it will make no difference whether he lives or does not live, he will be the new man. He who overcomes pain and fear will himself be God. And this God will not be.”
…”Then history will be divided into two parts: from the gorilla to the destruction of God, and from the destruction of God to…the physical changing of the earth and man. Man will be God and will change physically.”

Also:
“…and I proclaim that Shakespeare and Raphael are higher than the emancipation of the serfs, higher than nationality, higher than socialism, higher than the younger generation, higher than chemistry, higher than almost all mankind, for they are already the fruit, the real fruit of all mankind, and maybe the highest fruit there ever may be! A form of beauty already achieved, without the achievement of which I might not even consent to live…” ( )

This is my second Dostoyevsky novel, after the Brothers Karamazov. Like that work, I was engaged by Dostoyevsky's narrative voice, which always has a hint of ironic humor, even when he is discussing truly terrible things - and there are a lot of them in this book. In the end, it descends into a maelstrom of nihilism (OK - that's a bit overdone, but you get in that mood after reading this author.) The book isn't as good as the Brothers Karamazov because the events and characters are even more inexplicable. I guess my problem with Dostoyevsky is that I'm not Russian. His characters do and say things that just don't seem very logical to me - but obviously THEY feel very deeply about what they are doing. I don't know if it is the "19th century"-ness or the Russian-ness of the novel that creates the most problems. Still, I'm intrigued, and the next time I'm heading out for a vacation and want to take a book I can be sure I won't finish in two weeks, I may pick up another one of his. There is considerable pleasure to be found spending a few disoriented weeks in his company and that of his fascinating, if ultimately tragic, characters. ( )

: Another really good book by what is becoming my favourite author behind Charles Dickens. The way he presents philosophic ideas and then takes them to their disastrous conclusions makes for very powerful reading. The one thing disappointing about this novel is the removal of Stavorgin's Confession to the back of the book. The chapter, probably the best in the book, would have given a better understanding of Stavrogin's actions later in the book. The description of pedophilia though makes it understandable why it wasn't included in the main canon, but surely in these immoral days it could be included in the book. ( )

My favorite Dostoevsky novel is DEMONS (sometimes translated as THE POSSESSED or THE DEVILS), and I am not alone in my admiration of this novel of revolutionary political melodrama. Albert Camus even did a play version of the novel. Dostoevsky has been blasted by both the left and the right for this book, a prophetic novel of the impact of revolutionary nihilism in Russia shortly before the time of the Russian Revolution. Lenin even makes a brief appearance.

Dostoyevsky’s Demons is loosely based on a political murder in Russia during 1857. This murder was committed in response to a recantation from a member of a nihilist fringe group. The group’s purpose was to cause disorder in Russia as to hasten the emergence of a new order. Dostoyevsky’s hand was guided by the power of prophecy. Knowing that one of these filthy little groups did cause chaos and did take over Russia adds that much more to Demons’ power. It gives the deaths and chaos at the end, ringed by a thirsty fire, a potency to rock you.

What is in play in Demons is the manifestation of an idea. It is an idea that Shatov and Stepan T are seduced by but ultimately reject. It is an idea that cannot be confined to these men. It is an idea that cannot be confined by the trial that endeavors to frame and marginalize this provincial incident. The idea—an atheistic world order ruling over nature and men by colossal force—rather than being confined to the powerless was instantiated by Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Cambodian under the Khmer Rouge to name a few. What is tragic about this novel is that Dostoyevsky’s plea for the exorcism of these demons from Russia went unheeded.

Stravogin is the idle tormented nobleman at the center of the novel. He is not the ringleader—a duty that goes to Stepan T’s son Pyotr V—but nevertheless Stravogin binds all of the characters of the novel. As a central figure, it is telling that Stravogin is idle, fools around, commits crimes wantonly, convinces Shatov and Kirilov of contradictory philosophies at the same time, etc. Since Stravogin was Stepan’s student and since Pyotr was Stepan’s son, both seem like vile outgrowths of the intellectual transgressions of Stepan, who we are lead to believe initially shopped the idea in intellectual circles. It is as if Stepan, and by extension the intellectuals of that period, by his heresy, opened up the space necessary for such scheming nihilism of Pyotr V to breathe and grow.

Though adored by Pyotr as the mythical head of the new order, Stravogin is strangely detached from Pyotr V’s activities. When murders start happening, Stravogin’s noble sensibility kicks in and he recoils. Stravogin is then confined by his conscience to suffer for a sin he committed a while back. Though not originally designed as such the juxtaposition between Stravogin’s end and the Trokin’s vision of it is powerful. It is as if while he sees that vision he sees Stravogin’s bounding pride, indulgent lust for violence, and recklessness depart to leave a man of noble character in danger of damnation, but capable of repentance.

What would have happened if the central figure of this novel had at his core the robust Christianity that Dostoyevsky’s propagates? What would have happened if Russia, in torpor, had not allowed the forces of nihilism in and instead reclaimed her glorious past? Instead of the destruction of fire would Russia have seen the benediction of dawn? I think Stravogin is Dostoyevsky’s vehicle to ask these questions.

Demons is a powerful novel. It burns into a frenzy in the fire at its plot’s center. The plot takes a while to get going, but such slow accumulation of detail has stunning consequences at the climax. The book is also very funny. I like Stepan’s trip at the end. How this intellectual falls in with the locals is a lighthearted break among the passionate wrenching conclusions. It is one of my favorite novels for its characters (and their voices), its ideas, and its foresight.

Though admittedly I did not find this as great as The Brothers Karamazov, I am still intruiged by the events and philosophies of the book. Particularly the characters Shatov and Kirillov, who bring to light Dostoevsky's theories on religion. Shatov is a man who believes but is without faith, and Kirillov is a man who doesn't believe but has faith. Through these characters, he brings forth the dangers of both situations. Shatov, can never fully give himself up to anything, and so runs around, often like a chiken without a head. Meanwhile Kirillov gives himself up to a ridiculous idea, that killing one's self, for the sake of overcoming weakness, makes one into a god.

Many of the characters offer portraits of the very real and very selfish goal of real socialists. He exposes the way in which the hierarchy takes advantage of it's lackeys, more for personal gain, than for the movement. Yet, they masterfully use propaganda, as a means to their end.

The most intriuging character has to be Stavrogin, who is a man with neither belief nor faith. He is his own ruin, because he cannot give himself up to anything, and so winds up as an idle aristocrat. Idleness is the birth of vice, and Stavrogin is at no lack of vice. He is a womanizer to a great degree, but even this cannot be formed to a passion. He dispassionately laughs at those around him, until at last he turns his attention to himself.

As with all Dostoevsky novels, this one tackles the breadth of humanity, while still maintaining a primary focus. This book is highly political, and critical of socialism. A great read for anyone who still believes that socialism is an ideal. ( )

I read it about 35 years ago, but include it here to go with other more recently read Dostoyevsky books. The emphasis was mainly on the cynical and, from Dostoyevsky's point of view, misguided activities of political radicals in Russia at that time. There are some interesting portraits, such as that of Stavrogin, but the book is not as compelling as Crime and Punishment, which I also read at that time. ( )

This is not an easy read, but (as always) Dostoyevsky is worth the effort. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around all the ideas in this book. ( )

Russian Classic

Certainly an underappreciated work of Dostoevsky's, but also not the place to begin reading. Demons is better crafted, as regards plot, than The Idiot but lacks a lot of the latter's charm. The first section of the book is terribly dull -- things begin to pick up when we return to the present and Pyotr Stepanovich arrives. Stavrogin is fascinating. It's frustrating that he doesn't get a real conclusion.
Demons might actually be more heartbreaking than the average novel of Dostoevsky, in part because F.M. doesn't get around to fleshing out a couple of the most sympathetic characters until their fates have caught up with them. Worth readings -- but only after reading several of his other novels. ( )

As with all books by Dostoyevsky, the characters are what makes it. He takes one plot incident and builds around it, circling like an eagle, then jumps on his prey, which is you the reader. ( )

better the 2nd time through... can hardly stand the whole russian tendency to stereotype themselves, or their continual rebelling against their government.... but yeah, decent. ( )

The appended chapter, which was apparently too strong for the first publisher, should really be put back in the place where Dostoevsky wanted it. The reader is supposed to compare Kirillov's behaviour with Stavrogin's, and you only get the contrast when you see the reasons for Stavrogin's behaviour in the appended chapter.

I started this about a week ago, and it has been slow going (as evidence, I bought and read [Farewell My Lovely] in the interim). In Doestoyesvksy, we are always on the edge of horrendous behaviour. All we need to do is will it, and we can betray our family, abuse an old man, cover ourselves irretrievably in shame. Chilling. (3.3.07)

It hurt me to read, and I loved every second of it. ( )

This extraordinarily prescient novel of political anarchy gone murderously awry was written a good half-century before the Russian Revolution. Slow-going at first, but don't let that stop you. Dostoevsky writes with a perfectly cinematic eye. My favorite of all his books by far.

The first Dostoevsky I read, and the translation tha'ts gotten me hooked on the Pevear/Volokhonsky team. They annotate, with endnotes. A novel about terrorists--rather topical in current times, no? ( )

First published in 1871-2, this third of Dostoevsky's five major novels is at once a powerful political tract and a profound study of atheism, depicting the disarray which follows the appearance of a band of modish radicals in a small provincial town. The novel is full of buffoonery and grotesque comedy, and the plot is loosely based on the details of a notorious case of political murder.