What do evil men with emotions admire the most? It's not about ideology, making society better or any -isms... Discovering why Pyotor worshipped Stavrogin was a big "wow" moment for me when it was revealed in the last chapter. This is a tragic novel that will stay with you for a long time.

Better than the Brothers K. but you must get past the first 200 pages, which can be confusing.

This is the best of the 'dynamic duo's' translations that I have read, and interestingly it's a translation of the novel by Dostoyevsky I find most difficult to love. I have read and re-read "Demons" or "The Devils" several times, and feel that this admittedly excellent book falls short of greatness when compared to his other three true masterpieces. "Demons" suffers from a less-than-gripping plot (not just a 'plot' to kill a revolutionary) that is barely sustained by some of the author's least interesting conversational set pieces, a cast of thoroughly unlikable characters, or caricatures, and a narrator whose befuddlement at events that transpire is matched only by his inabilty to influence these events.

In Nikolai Stavrogin, Dostoyevsky creates the pencil sketch of an intriguing individual (perhaps his most purely evil character) but the gradations of shade and light present in the author's best characters are all but absent. Stavrogin's nonchalant vileness may have been too much for even Dostoyevsky to explain, and the appended 'Stavrogin's Confession' omitted from the original publication, is very unpleasant with all it alludes to. If, as some have speculated, Stavrogin is the Prince of Darkness incarnate, the author gives the reader a shadow wrapped in an enigma.

In short I feel "Demons" pales somewhat compared to the other three acknowledged masterpieces.Structural deficiencies in "The Idiot" (my favorite) are more than compensated for by the wicked humor and pathos, as well as by more lovingly drawn characters, whilst both "The Brothers Karamazov" and "Crime and Punishment" are sustained by suspenseful narratives and again by terrific characters. "Demons" is polemic-as-novel, and whilst by no means a failure, is nonetheless a difficult love and is best left to the last by those wishing to read and come under the spell of this remarkable author.

Intense view into the soul of Russia before the revolution. Among countless other perceptions of a genius.

Great book if you are interested in the life of Russian provinces. Or, if you are interested in how evil men get their way. Or if you are interested in super intense psycho analytical mambo-jumbo. Dostoevsky has the ability to make anyone drop their jaw and hold on to their boots. This book brings on a lot of intense feelings, not too many of which are pleasant. It also has a lot of amazingly interesting outlooks on situations that are as real as the air you breathe.

Strongly recommend this particular translation:Demons
Other translations of this book have other names.

Demons (also known as Possessed & The Devils) is a 1878 novel by literary genius Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881). The novel is long, difficult and rife with Russian names easy to confuse. The novel is also a work of art of peerless genius.
The massive novel is set in the unimportant provincial Russian town of
Skvorishniki. The major characters are:
Vavara Stavrogin-She is the wealthy widow of a Russian general. Vavara is an aristocrat who is cultured and kind.
Stavrogin-A nihilist who is involved in the budding communist movement to overturn the Russian government. He is cruel, self-centered and self-loathing. An intellectual bored with life and love. He marries a crippled and ugly woman whom he later has murdered at his behest. He is Vavara's wastrel son.
Stepan-The old liberal of the 1840s who is a failed professor. He is the tutor to the young Stavrogin and is supported by the kindness of Vavara. He will later flee the town to die on the road. I found him to be a pathetic foolish character.
Lembke-The ridiculous head of the local town government. Dostoevsky did not like government officials and has fun with this pathetic creature. His wife seeks to climb society's slippery ladder by holding a literary fete in the town.
Lisa-The love interest of the novel who has suitors but is drawn to Stavrogin in a hopeless and tragic love.
The long novel is many books wrapped into one:
a. A mystery and suspense story about the conspirators and the destruction they perpetuate in the town. The town is a microcosm of Russian Tsarist society. These are the "demons" of the title based on Christ's driving out the demons from the Gerasene demoniac in the gospel accounts.
b. A philosophical/theological book exploring the issues of the existence of God; theodicy; the existence of good and evil. Not easy going for the casual reader!
c. A satire of the Russian literary world in which Dostoevsky makes fun of Turgenev who was too Westernized for the Slavophilic author.
d. A tragic love story.
The novel takes a long time getting into the exciting tale of the machinations of the conspirators. It will, however, reward the patient reader.

As background information, I have read most of Dostoevsky's novels including some of his early works and all of his most popular 6 or 7 novels.

First of all, this is a good translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. My only complaint is that the characters have multiple names, i.e.: as an example the same character is called von Blum and Andrei Antonovich. It is all quite confusing, and it is compounded by 20 similar names and characters. In any case, Richard Pevear provides an excellent introduction to the novel without giving away the plot - so one can read the introduction first or go back and read it midway without spoiling the reading experience. Also, he provides a list of all the major characters with the duplicate names. That information is essential for reading the book; I found myself going back to look at that list every 25 pages or so to keep all the characters straight.

The question for Dostoevsky fans is the following, i.e.: is this a great novel or just too much? I think it is simply too much and too diffuse: it lacks strong characters and the plot is weak. Obviously, a lot of time and effort had gone into the novel but it does not quite work as a well balanced and entertaining piece of work. Yes, it is easy to read but the story is not compelling. It seems to wander and it takes forever. It takes at least 500 pages to get to any writing that could be classified as compelling.

Dostoevsky re-wrote the novel a number of times, and based it on a real life event in Russia. But that event does not appear until late in the novel. Most of the story is elaborate and slow moving. It is too diffuse and there is too much dialogue.

Instead of one or two key characters, we have a whole village full of characters, and each character seems to be missing a lot of detail. As Richard Pevear tells us, each character says a lot but we cannot determine what the character is like. It is as if a mask is speaking instead of a complete person, or persons.

Dostoevsky uses the Jane Austen technique of fitting different levels of speech to portray different social levels for different characters. Sometimes they speak in French. All of this seems to add more confusion.

So in summary, this is a long and elaborate novel that took Dostoevsky a number of years to write. He has all the ingredients for a great novel, so one might expect that it will be a great novel. He tries to interweave interesting non-fiction events with a long and elaborate fictional story about atheists or revolutionaries in a small Russian village. He does not quite pull it all off. The novel is very readable and there is lots of subtle humor in the first 150 pages, but after a while it is all a bit too much. The main result here is that it gives Dostoevsky the ideas and approach to write his last novel "The Brother Karamazov."

Readers will find it slow and fragmented, and most will think it too diffuse, lacking a clear plot and any literary punch.

First of all, this is a good translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. My only complaint is that the characters have multiple names, i.e.: as an example the same character is called von Blum and Andrei Antonovich. It is all quite confusing, and it is compounded by 20 similar names and characters. In any case, Richard Pevear provides an excellent introduction to the novel without giving away the plot - so one can read the introduction first or go back and read it midway without spoiling the reading experience. Also, he provides a list of all the major characters with the duplicate names. That information is essential for reading the book; I found myself going back to look at that list every 25 pages or so to keep all the characters straight.

The question for Dostoevsky fans is the following, i.e.: is this a great novel or just too much? I think it is simply too much and too diffuse: it lacks strong characters and the plot is weak. Obviously, a lot of time and effort had gone into the novel but it does not quite work as a well balanced and entertaining piece of work. Yes, it is easy to read but the story is not compelling. It seems to wander and it takes forever. It takes at least 500 pages to get to any writing that could be classified as compelling.

Dostoevsky re-wrote the novel a number of times, and based it on a real life event in Russia. But that event does not appear until late in the novel. Most of the story is elaborate and slow moving. It is too diffuse and there is too much dialogue.

Instead of one or two key characters, we have a whole village full of characters, and each character seems to be missing a lot of detail. As Richard Pevear tells us, each character says a lot but we cannot determine what the character is like. It is as if a mask is speaking instead of a complete person, or persons.

Dostoevsky uses the Jane Austen technique of fitting different levels of speech to portray different social levels for different characters. Sometimes they speak in French. All of this seems to add more confusion.

So in summary, this is a long and elaborate novel that took Dostoevsky a number of years to write. He has all the ingredients for a great novel, so one might expect that it will be a great novel. He tries to interweave interesting non-fiction events with a long and elaborate fictional story about atheists or revolutionaries in a small Russian village. He does not quite pull it all off. The novel is very readable and there is lots of subtle humor in the first 150 pages, but after a while it is all a bit too much. The main result here is that it gives Dostoevsky the ideas and approach to write his last novel "The Brother Karamazov."

Readers will find it slow and fragmented, and most will think it too diffuse, lacking a clear plot and any literary punch.

First of all, this is a good translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. My only complaint is that the characters have multiple names, i.e.: as an example the same character is called von Blum and Andrei Antonovich. It is all quite confusing, and it is compounded by 20 similar names and characters. In any case, Richard Pevear provides an excellent introduction to the novel without giving away the plot - so one can read the introduction first or go back and read it midway without spoiling the reading experience. Also, he provides a list of all the major characters with the duplicate names. That information is essential for reading the book; I found myself going back to look at that list every 25 pages or so to keep all the characters straight.

The question for Dostoevsky fans is the following, i.e.: is this a great novel or just too much? I think it is more of the latter than the former. Obviously, a lot of time and effort has gone into the novel but it does not quite work as a well balanced and entertaining piece of work. Yes, it is easy to read but the story is not compelling. It seems to wander and it takes forever - at least 500 pages - to get to any writing that could be classified as compelling.

Dostoevsky re-wrote the novel a number of times, and based it on a real life event in Russia. But that event does not appear until late in the novel. Most of the story is elaborate and slow moving. It is too diffuse and there is too much dialogue.

Instead of one or two key characters, we have a whole village full of characters, and each character seems to be missing a lot of detail. As Richard Pevear tells us, each character says a lot but we cannot determine what the character is like. It is as if a mask is speaking instead of a complete person, or persons.

Dostoevsky uses the Jane Austen technique of fitting different levels of speech to portray different social levels for different characters. Sometimes they speak in French. All of this seems to add more confusion.

So in summary, this is a long and elaborate novel that took Dostoevsky a number of years to write. He has all the ingredients for a great novel, so one might expect that it will be a great novel. He tries to interweave interesting non-fiction events with a long and elaborate fictional story about atheists or revolutionaries in a small Russian village. He does not quite pull it all off. The novel is very readable and there is lots of subtle humor in the first 150 pages, but after a while it is all a bit too much. The main result here is that it gives Dostoevsky the ideas and approach to write his last novel "The Brother Karamazov."

Readers will find it slow and fragmented, and most will think it too diffuse, lacking a clear plot and any literary punch.

First of all, this is a good translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. My only complaint is that the characters have multiple names, i.e.: one character is called von Blum and Andrei Antonovich. It is all quite confusing, and it is compounded by 20 similar names and characters. In any case, Richard Pevear provides an excellent introduction to the novel without giving away the plot, and he provides a list of all the major characters who have duplicate names. That information is essential to the reading of the book; I found myself going back to look at that list every 25 pages or so to keep all the characters straight.

The question for Dostoevsky fans is the following, i.e.: is this a great novel or just too much? I think it is more of the latter than the former. Obviously, a lot of time and effort has gone into the novel but it does not quite work as a well balanced and entertaining piece of work. Yes, it is easy to read but the story is not compelling. It seems to wander and it takes forever - at least 500 pages - to get to any writing that could be classified as compelling.

Dostoevsky re-wrote the novel a number of times, and based it on a real life event in Russia. But that event does not appear until late in the novel. Most of the story is elaborate and slow moving. It is too diffuse and there is too much dialogue.

Instead of one or two key characters, we have a whole village full of characters, and each character seems to be missing a lot of detail. As Richard Pevear tells us, each character says a lot but we cannot determine what the character is like. It is as if a mask is speaking instead of a complete person, or persons.

Dostoevsky uses the Jane Austen technique of fitting different levels of speech to portray different social levels for different characters. Sometimes they speak in French. All of this seems to add more confusion.

So in summary, this is a long and elaborate novel that took Dostoevsky a number of years to write. He has all the ingredients for a great novel, so one might expect that it will be a great novel. He tries to interweave interesting non-fiction events with a long and elaborate fictional story about atheists or revolutionaries in a small Russian village. He does not quite pull it all off. The novel is very readable and there is lots of subtle humor in the first 150 pages, but after a while it is all a bit too much. The main result here is that it gives Dostoevsky the ideas and approach to write his last novel "The Brother Karamazov."

Readers will find it slow and fragmented, and most will think it too diffuse, lacking a clear plot and any literary punch.

Secret political cells of underground socialist activists honeycomb your "somnolent and lethargic" (1) cities and countryside . . . rumors that their instructions emanate from an international crime syndicate are in the air . . . a mysterious, wealthy foreign prince awaits his moment to seize power . . . political tracts and a revolutionary manifesto have been discovered in the hands of local factory workers . . . nihilistic students influenced by the "evil West" are advocating chaos and destruction. This dark and gloomy atmosphere pervades "The Possessed" - all 700 pages of it. It is a complex and interesting hybrid of ideas and characters drawn by a great author with an axe to grind against the political radicalism he felt opposed to during the 1860s. As a sardonic tirade against a generation of radical atheists bent on deconstructing the moral fiber of Russian society, as well as an apology for the Russian Orthodox church, it helps to keep in mind that the original titles were "Atheism" and "The Great Sinners" and to be familiar with Dostoevsky's attitudes towards Christianity. Thus, in my mind, Dostoevsky is a predecessor to Holden Caulfield and "The Possessed" the Russian godfather to Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" (1951).

The shady and reprehensible Peter Verkhovensky and unpredictable Nikolai Stavrogin are the central "agitators" in the mysterious plot. The Byronic Stavrogin is the most obscure of all, but to understand his duality and ennui is to understand the novel. According to Dostoevsky, he is "the first artistic expression of a crisis in the Russian spirit" (2). The reader is constantly guessing who's who and what's what amidst constant chatter of an ever-widening plot, the nature of which is intentionally vague. All the while, characters from one generation or the other interact as though from different planets. As for the immense length, I couldn't help wonder whether Dostoevsky, like one of his favorite authors Charles Dickens, didn't prolong his narrative for greater remuneration (in those days authors were often paid by the word) - it was serialized for a full two years between 1871 and 1872. At times I became more frustrated and irritated instead of curious, and had to use all my reading strength to stay the course. The characters are frequently melodramatic (especially, Stepan Verkhovensky) and difficult to relate to by modern norms, but it's revelatory that the author's earliest influences were the Gothic novels of Ann Radcliffe. Nevertheless, I admire Dostoevsky's manner of drawing well-rounded descriptions for each and every living thing in his books (like Balzac and Tolstoy) because it creates a world unto itself; one that is more complete and believable once entered.

All of Dostoevsky's favorite themes are here: Revolution, crime, atheism, religion, strong men, underground men, and the Russian past and present (3). The eternal East vs. West theme is internalized and encapsulated as a Russian struggle for national identity, and it is awe-inspiring that Dostoevsky managed to pull this artistic feat off at all. "The Possessed", or "Demons", or "Devils", or whatever title happens to be en vogue, is not the ideal novel with which to begin reading Dostoevsky by any means, but is absolutely essential for those who enjoyed the themes of "Crime and Punishment" and "Brothers Karamazov", and certainly "Notes from Underground". Like Turgenev in "Fathers & Sons", a novel Dostoevsky greatly admired in-spite of his merciless portrayal of its author as the pathetic Karmazinov, "The Possessed" has come to be seen as an uncanny prophecy of the Bolshevik Revolution (it is fascinating to realize that Lenin, Stalin and the Soviet Union were another 40-50 years removed). At times unwieldy and confusing, long-winded and unbearable, its greatness lays within its complex richness of themes. Much like "The Idiot" in terms of novelistic imperfections, "The Possessed" remains intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking on multiple levels long after one has put the book down.

1.) Frank, Joseph. Demons, Everyman's Library (Knopf), 1994. Introduction, p.xvii.
2.) Ibid p. xxi.
3.) MacAndrew, Andrew. The Possessed, Signet, 1962. This is the translation I read and is an easily readable, modernized and less stilted one than that of the probably more "accurate" Pevear & Volokhonsky version.

Approximately 98% of this book consists of the following:
TRULY bad writing - people who "go pale" on every page, villains who smile "crookedly" etc.;
sloppy structuring and inconsistent narrative technique (depending on D's momentary needs - a narrator who is a character or an omniscient author);
ludicrous caricatures in place of characters;
a basically dull plot, unbelievable at almost every turn.

The "political" element of the book is about as sophisticated as an Al Capp's "Lil' Abner". All the progressive characters in the book are ugly and "venomous". And despite some namedropping (Fourier, Herzen), not one issue raised by the radicals of the period is even addressed. Since Dostoevsky was at one point a political radical, he obviously knew better. So one suspects the worst form of pandering. It was at this point in his life where he was in favor with the Tsar.

Particularly distasteful is Dostoevsky's attempt at satirizing Turgenev's person and work. It is neither funny nor on target, merely lame and mean spirited. And his "effeminacy", high-pitched voice and all, should make you squirm.


The remaining 2% evinces the reason we still bother to read Dostoevsky. Stavrogin's confession and the final scene with Kirillov reveal the Dostoevsky who influenced Nietzsche, Freud and the existentialists. Both sections are intellectually stimulating and dramatically vivid.

But there is nothing new here that we have not encountered in "Notes from Underground" or "The Karamazov Brothers". If you're up for something "Russian" of this length, try Nabokov's "Ada", an INFINITELY greater work of art.

Approximately 98% of this book consists of the following:
TRULY Bad writing - people who "go pale" on every page, villains who smile "crookedly" etc.;
sloppy structuring and inconsistent narrative technique (depending on D's momentary needs - a narrator who is a character or an omniscient author);
ludicrous caricatures in place of characters;
a basically dull plot, unbelievable at almost every turn.

The "political" element of the book is about as sophisticated as an Al Capp's "Lil' Abner". All the progressive characters in the book are ugly and "venomous". And despite some namedropping (Fourier, Herzen), not one issue raised by the radicals of the period is even addressed. Since Dostoevsky was at one point a political radical, he obviously knew better. So one suspects the worst form of pandering. It was at this point in his life where he was in favor with the Tsar.

Particularly distasteful is Dostoevsky's attempt at satirizing Turgenev's person and work. It is neither funny nor on target, merely lame and mean spirited. And the suggestion of his "effeminacy", high-pitched voice and all, should make you squirm.


The remaining 2% evince the reasons we still bother to read Dostoevsky. Stavrogin's confession and the final scene with Kirillov reveal the Dostoevsky who influenced Nietzche, Freud and the existentialists. They are both intellectually stimulating and entertaining at once.

But there is nothing new in even these brief parts that we have not encountered in "Notes from Underground" or "The Karamazov Brothers". If you want to read something "Russian" of this length, try Nabokov's ADA,
an infinitely greater work of art.

I don't know what it is, but I get the feeling that reading Dostoevsky is an addiction. Whether it's a longing for creepy reality-based stories set in the whirlwind of 1870's Russia or those moments where Dostoevsky's genius for emotional writing lets loose, I think I'm addicted.

I say this because there are clearly a lot of moments in this 700 page book where I plod on, just wondering where the action is headed, could I recommend this book to someone else?, the answer is "No", but I still want to read on.

The first couple hundred pages describe the various characters. The action takes place in the second part of the book. The writing is typical D, not some dry polemic I had feared, as I had read so much about Demons being D's most "political" book. Don't worry; it's a novel first, not a manifesto.

I had a hard time following some of the characters, but maybe that was just me, maybe not. Figuring out the narrator is also problematic, though very interesting to think about (discussed in an essay in Leatherbarrow's book, see below).

There's also humor, which many reviewers talk about, but this is mostly in the latter sections, where D satirizes the characters of the group that want to tear down society. Clearly, one of the main attractions of this book is that D seemingly and very accurately foreshadows what happens in Russia 45 years later during the 1917 Revolution and rise of Communism. He couldn't have been more on target.

So, if you're reading this for enjoyment and haven't read several of Dostoevsky's other major books, read them first. This book, as well as many other of D's books, was printed and written as a serial and isn't as smooth and refined as The Brother's Karamazov or Crime and Punishment. But once you're familiar with D and his environment, this book should be fine. Make sure to read the footnotes, as they provide very meaningful and essential insight into the environment in which D wrote.

Finally, there is a very good collection of short essays on various aspects of Demons edited by Leatherbarrow. I highly recommend it, in addition to the introduction by Pevear.

It is an excellent book. If you like Dostoevsky and have read any of his other books, you will be seduced by this one immediately. If you have not read any of his work, keep on reading...you will want to read what you have missed so far. I trust Vintage with the best translations into english from non-english speaking writers and professional editing.

Fyodor Dostoevsky based his powerhouse novel "Demons" on a real-life murder case that occurred in 1869 involving a student named Ivanov. Dostoevsky's brother-in-law was personally acquainted with the victim who was lured into a park and horribly murdered by a group of his fellow revolutionaries led by Sergei Nechaev. Nechaev, ostensibly dedicated to revolutionary activities, used a range of tactics--including blackmailing friends--in order to rope them into his revolutionary organization.

"Demons" is a vast, complex novel that examines Russian society through a large cast of characters. Dostoevsky's novel begins with the introduction of Stepan Verkhovensky--a middle-aged, would-be intellectual whose early claim to fame is that he wrote an inflammatory, revolutionary tract or two decades early. Stepan fancies himself as a scholar and a radical, and he's encouraged in this idea by his wealthy patroness, Varvara Stavrogin, the widow of a general. The relationship between these two has worked quite well for years, but when the novel begins, the relationship is about to enter a tumultuous stage. After a visit from a St. Petersburg friend, the indomitable Varvara has illusions of herself as a society hostess and she drags Stepan off to St. Petersburg. Here, she "invented a costume" for Stepan, her resident pet dissident, with the intention of holding radical meetings in her salon, and she eventually even establishes a radical political magazine. After Varvara's endeavors fail abysmally, she returns to the provinces, and her disgruntlement falls squarely on Stepan.

Varvara's son, the elegant and cold lady-killer Nikolai Stavrogin returns to his mother's estate after some years of absence. At the same time, Stepan's estranged son, Pyotr also shows up, and these two young men are part of a secret circle of conspirators whose radical ideas include plotting the deaths of the Tsar and his family. Absolute abandonment of all moral codes of behaviour, and total blind obedience is demanded from the group's members. Pyotr is a master manipulator who convinces his followers that one of the members of the secret society, Shatov, is about to inform against them. While Pyotr has his personal reasons for destroying Shatov, he enjoys playing the puppet master and manipulating everyone else to commit the crime.

"Demons" is not without its problems. It's wildly discursive, and Dostoevsky is not concerned with standard forms--as a result there are some loose ends. Most of the characters are extremely unlikable, and while the first section of the novel is surprisingly funny, the novel soon assumes dark, ominous tones. Varvara is a major character for the first part of the novel, and then, frustratingly, she all but disappears from the pages until the very end, but in the meantime, Dostoevsky 'replaces' her with a doppelganger in the form of the character of Yulia, the vain wife of the new governor. But in spite of its flaws, it cannot be denied that "Demons"--with its intricate demonstrations of the complexities of human relationships--is anything less than brilliant, and the new smooth translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky is pure joy to read. Dostoevsky seems to delight in illuminating the absurdities of his characters' many weaknesses. There's Kirillov, the structural engineer who frets about exercise and health while being obsessed with the notion of suicide as the ultimate act of free will, and there's the new governor who is alternately flattered and manipulated by Pyotr's attention. But above all the absurdities and pettiness of human nature, Pyotr--one of the greatest literary personifications of evil ever created--is seen as a chilling precursor of the Bolsheviks--a man who contemplates the deaths of millions as a political expediency, and who, with perfect ease, ensnares everyone with an intricate net of deceit. If you are interested in reading more about Nechaev, I recommend "Bakunin and Nechaev" by Paul Avrich--displacedhuman