The House of the Dead

This was my first Dostoyevsky. I'd always dreaded reading him because his weight--not only in length but also in canonical import--intimidated me, but the subject matter of this deeply personal book intrigued me and felt like a good introduction given my tastes in fiction. I wasn't wrong. Dostoyevsky's portrayal of life in a 19th-C. Siberian work prison is bleak and sometimes brutal, a stark vision of human depravity as well as humanity's capacity for adapting to--and accepting--almost any depth of depravity. The book is long, occasionally over-descriptive, and sometimes tedious, and the fractured arrangement of events and categorical assortment of characters feels disorienting at times, but even in translation Dostoyevsky has an show more powerful ability to paint deeply moving portraits of human beings, so I appreciated his work with character tremendously. My only real complaint is the ending: the back of the book promised revelation and redemption for the novel's broken, autobiographical narrator, but--though Dostovevsky does attempt to spell this idea out for us--the "resurrection" in the end feels rushed, forced, perhaps even trite, and ultimately anticlimactic, nothing nearly as profound as similar movements in, say, Maribou Stork Nightmares or For Whom the Bell Tolls. Still, the book was moving in places, and utterly brilliant in the middle few chapters, so I will definitely return to Dostoyesvky for some slow leisure reading in the distant future. show less

There is a sentence from Memoirs From The House Of The Dead, which summarizes this entire book neatly: "Here I am, however, trying to classify the whole prison into types: but is this possible?"

Even though this book has been described as the "least Dostoevskian of his works", the mind-numbing precision of Dostoevsky's human psyche analysis still pervades this book strongly, through Alexander Petrovich's observations of the prisoners going about their daily lives in penal servitude. Not all is gloomy and dry though - Dostoevsky's a great narrator as well and he easily breathes personalities and humanity into his characters, some of who also possess a roguish, riotous wit. I'd recommend this to anyone starting out with his books.

Fascinating in a couple thousand ways — among them the apparent necessity of properly motivating a Siberian convict workforce. The barking of armed guards is not enough. The guards had to define the conditions of work, at least in Dostoyevsky's telling, in terms that made the prisoners want to stop lounging in the grass, smoking their pipes and trading insults. Once given sufficient reason to set to the task, they went at it with alacrity. Who knew that workplace psychology applied?

"Novel" (but reads like memoirs) based on his experiences in a Siberian hard labour camp.

Also shades of Robinson Crusoe: self-assurance of his own superiority and the pragmatic and ingenious approach to making the best of things, coupled with earnest self improvement and positive spin (eg "I also particularly enjoyed shovelling snow" - really!?).

Although the conditions were dire, there were some unexpected (to me) freedoms and comforts, and some wry humour, so it's brighter than Kafka in many ways.

There is a huge "cast", but at least the nomenclature is consistent (unlike Crime & Punishment).

This book is Dostoyevsky's memoir of his years in a Siberian prison camp. He did create a fictional first-person narrator for this book, but it's so weak that the narrator can't even keep up the facade enough to remember why he was sent to the camp in the first place. This book is incoherent, meandering and disjointed but nonetheless interesting and reveals great love for humanity. It reads like a collection of sketches and short stories woven together loosely by the complete experience. This was Leo Tolstoy's favorite Dostoyevsky book.

"Just how horrible that time was I have not the strength to tell you....."

Yet he does tell the reader, most effectively. Wow - this book is so powerful.

Dostoyevsky wrote this after he spent four years in a penal colony in Siberia. (He was convicted of treason, sentenced to death, and reprieved at the last moment).

Presented as a fictional account of a noble convicted of murder, I think this is a thinly disquised memoir of his time in the colony. It is not for the faint-hearted, but beautifully written in a controlled and almost journalistic style.

It reminds me of the Primo Levi book Survival in Auschwitz. It shares the same astounding personal control - maintaining detached evaluation and avoiding any anger or resentment in the face show more of great suffering. The essential feature of both seems to be the removal of personality with the lack of freedom and autonomy.

After the first shocking impact of entering the prison passes, the mood becomes more uplifting as he discovers friends and companions and is impressed by their vitality and resilience.

I admire Levi enormously - and now can add Dostoyevsky to that list. Some of the descriptions of flogging and cruelty may not appeal, but I am so glad to have read this book before tackling his later fiction. show less

La maison des morts, c'est le bagne de Sibérie où Dostoïevski a purgé comme condamné politique une peine de quatre années de travaux forcés et de six ans de « service militaire ». Mais la maison des morts, c'est aussi le Goulag. La Russie de Dostoïevski est déjà celle de Staline, de Beria, de Vychinski, des grands procès où les accusés rivalisent devant leurs procureurs de contrition et d'aveux. Comme l'écrit Claude Roy, « la Russie d'hier et la Russie moderne sont exemplaires dans la science du 'châtiment' sur deux points essentiels. Elles ont poussé plus avant peut-être qu'aucun peuple l'art de donner aux tortionnaires cette paix de l'esprit que procure la bonne conscience. Elles ont su simultanément contraindre show more un nombre important de leurs victimes, non seulement à subir sans révolte les épreuves infligées, mais à donner à leurs tourmenteurs un total acquiescement. » show less