/lit/ - Literature

Dostoyevsky's best book.

Am I the only one who thinks Demons is better than TBK?

I felt the filth of human nature better in Demons.

>Reason has never had the power of defining evil and good or separating evil from good, even approximately. On the contrary, it has always mixed them up in a shameful and pitiful fashion, whereas science has found solutions by sheer force. In particular, this is the distinguishing feature of half-science, mankind’s most dreadful scourge, worse than plague, famine and war, and it has been unknown until the present century. Half-science is a despot such as has never been seen until now. A despot who has his high priests and his slaves, a despot before whom all have prostrated themselves with love and superstition such as has been unthinkable until now, before which even science itself trembles and to which it shamefully panders.
when Dosto uses the Russian word polunauka (пoлyнayкa), literally half-science, what exactly is he referring to?
I doubt he simply means pseudoscience, I feel it's more that the application of science in certain areas of human life yields these grotesque, stillborn "truths" which it then tries to push as absolute and final

So far I've been really enjoying the book and I haven't had any trouble with the dialogues. Then I reached Part II, Chapter 1, subparts 2 and 3 - basically where we have Stepan Trofimovich recall what he talked about with his son Pyotr Stepanovich, and then the dialogue between Pyotr Stepanovich and Nikolay Stavrogin.
I re-read some parts several times and I just couldn't make sense of a large chunk of what was said. I sense a great deal of anxiety and agitation in both Stepan and Pyotr, and while this state is somewhat natural for Stepan, it was still odd seeing him speak so disjointedly - I could only glean some sense from his words when he was talking about something revolutionary, but it was still really vague and unclear.
Pyotr had, so far, spoken eloquently and to the point, and seeing him flustered, shifting his weight from foot to foot and waving his hands while babbling incomprehensibly was jarring.
My question is - am I right in thinking that Stepan feels intimidated by Nikolay Stavrogin and that he wants something (vaguely alluded to) from him which makes him act like a fool and babble on and on without seemingly getting to the point, or is there something about the dialogues that has evaded me so far?
Pyotr meandered his way to a few clear sentences at the end of part 3, those about atheism, the Internationale and Fedka, the convict from Siberia, whom Pyotr seems to hint is a possible tool for doing something illegal and untoward, but were these parts clearer on purpose or did I get filtered by the rest of his speech?
tl;dr - I was just blasted by pages of anxiety-ridden dialogue about something-but-nothing in particular (Part II, chapter 1). What's happening?

So far I've been really enjoying the book and I haven't had any trouble at all with the character dialogues. That is, until I reached Part II, Chapter 1, subparts 2 and 3 - basically the parts where we have Stepan Trofimovich recall what he talked about with his son Pyotr Stepanovich, and then the dialogue between Pyotr Stepanovich and Nikolay Stavrogin.
I re-read some parts several times and I just couldn't make sense of a large chunk of what was said. I sense a great deal of anxiety and agitation in both Stepan and Pyotr when they speak, and while this state is somewhat natural for Stepan, it was still odd seeing him speak so disjointedly - I could only glean some sense from his words when he was talking about something revolutionary, but it was really vague and unclear.
Pyotr was even weirder. So far he'd spoken eloquently and to the point and seeing him flustered, shifting his weight from foot to foot and waving his hands while babbling incomprehensibly was jarring.
My question is - am I right to think that he feels intimidated by Nikolay Stavrogin and wants something (vaguely alluded to) from him which makes him act like a fool and babble on and on with no seeming point, or is there something about the dialogues that has evaded me so far? Seeing how Pyotr meandered his way to a few clear sentences at the end of part 3, those about atheism, the Internationale and Fedka, the convict from Siberia, whom Pyotr seems to hint is a possible tool for doing something illegal and untoward, but why?
After the whole showdown on Sunday in the previous chapter I was starting to think all the mystery and intrigue would start unravelling, only to be blasted by pages of anxiety-ridden dialogue about something-but-nothing in particular. What's happening?

I'm in part three and this is still fucking dragging. Fuck you to all anons who told me to give it another shot after dropping it in the first part. I have been memed. Now I'm going to finish it so as to not be a pussy.

Everyone talks about Crime and Punishment and Karamazov but this is my favorite Dostoevsky novel. His analysis of the young extremists is so accurate it hurts.

>>20245954

Last two chapters are absolutely beautiful, among the best things Dostoevsky ever wrote

>>19974230

>>19924308

Everyone died and nothing happened. I don't feel good.

I am on Stepanovich's last peregrination right now, just about done with the book. Did these people really believe they could change the moral landscape of an entire country by printing a few tracts and having parties? is it that easy? What the hell was going on with Kirillov? he is god so he has to kill himself to affirm his Will? was he just an insane epileptic?

>>19722674

For all the midair Dostoy threads posted on here, I almost never see this book discussed. I find this strange because it’s his most complex and arguably most complete work, it’s almost always overshadowed by BK and C&P

Now i know why he is one of the greatest writers ever, this book is pure prophecy.

>>18746833
>muh classist gatekeeping elitists
I hate people so much bros.
Goddamn how I hate them.

What is the message of this book? Commit suicide? Kirillov is one of Dost's best characters btw.

*mogs all hes other works*
heh

>>18210746

Alright lit, help us out. What translation of Dostoevsky is the best? Specifically a translation of Demons, although a more general discussion is welcome too.
Does translation choice even matter as long as you buy a commercial brand?

Can it be adapted into a film? Who would it take to pull it off?

Liberals BTFO. How did Dosto do it?

wtf I hate liberals now