Excellent translation and narration

"Devils" (formerly translated as "The Possessed," and sometimes translated as "Demons") is one of Dostoevsky's four great long novels, the others being "Crime and Punishment," "The Idiot," and "The Brothers Karamazov."

First, don't by the version narrated by Patrick Cullen and titled "The Possessed." The narration is poor and the translation is the outdated one by Constance Garnett.

"Devils" is a very political novel and was intended to be so. In order to appreciate it, you should do a little research on the 1869 murder by the Russian revolutionary Nechayev. One of the two lead characters, Peter Stephanovich Verkhovensky, a creepy Charles Manson type, is based on Nechayev. The Wikipedia article on "Demons" is short and informative. It also helps to know a little about Dostoevsky's background because several elements are autobiographical. Last, you might want to print a list of characters because, like all Russian novels, the many patronymic names can be confusing, especially if you're listening. If you do these things you'll experience the full effect.

The plot centers on some brutal, political murders. The setting is the run-up to the Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin and company didn't come out of nowhere. Trouble had been brewing in Russia for some time. "Devils" places events in context. Like all of Dostoevsky's works, the plot is deeply psychological, though there is quite a bit of dry humor and irony (items that are often missed in Dostoevsky's works because the original translator, Constance Garnett, tended to homogenize his phrases). If you're into this thing, "Devils" is a gripping novel.

The narrator is the very accomplished George Guidall. I've listened to many of his readings, such as his outstanding performances in "Crime and Punishment" and "Don Quixote." George is perfect for "Demons." His sharp characterizations, timing, and overall feel are perfect. He has a Slavic background and takes great pride in reading the Russian greats.

Last, I can't say enough good things about this 1992 translation by Russian Studies Professor Michael R. Katz of Middlebury College. Professor Katz reinserts Dostoevsky's intentionally quirky sentence structure which was sadly washed out by earlier translators. I've read that some critics think Doestoevsky wasn't a great stylist as was Tolstoy and others. In my opinion, that's only because early translators failed to pick up his nuances. Dostoevsky was a very careful writer. Many of his supposedly awkward sentences, when carefully translated, reveal great wit and style. I compared Professor Katz's translation to others, such as the acclaimed translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky, and feel that Professor Katz's is the best going.

"Devils" is a great listen if you're willing to put in the time and effort.

197 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

I loved the Devil(s) out of the Possessed

How the Hell do I adequately review this? Once someone hits a certain genius with writing (or other forms of art), it is impossible to really grade their art. How could one grade Beethoven's great symphonies? Is Demons/Devils/the Possessed better than Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot? Tell me, do you prefer Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

Dostoyevsky is writing the gospels man*. Greatness is not a bolus of achievement or a gout of acclaim. It just is. Each of Dostoyevsky's big novels is a piece that is both infinitely frustrating and beautifully perfect at the same time. There was probably more to love (for me) in Brothers Karamazov, but it didn't flow as easily as Demons, but still gah, still I think I love Demons more. No, Brothers K. No. Gah!.

Desert Island book? Forced to pick? To HELL with you I'm taking both or trade my food of foot or future for the second (sealed) book. IT IS that good.

Demons is what you get when you mix a writer who is a philosopher on par with the thinking greats, a writer who is a psychologist on par with the behavioral greats, a writer who is a preacher on par with the moral greats. Oh, and you better damn sure make this writer is hypergraphic.

OK. I'm going to have to calm down, let this stew and seep, think some, sip some, and return and revise. This captures some of the energy I felt closing this book, but doesn't even come close to demanding from me what this book deserves.

* Yes, I kept thinking vaguely of the Big Lebowski as I read this.

61 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Amazing

This author was brought to my attention by Jordan Peterson. I finished Crime and Punishment and now Devils. Both had moments that had me on the edge of my seat, brought me to tears, to joy and to laughter. Seeing the resemblance between the complexities of progressivism then to current day blew me away. I've been liberal since High School but JBP and this literature has opened my eyes, brought me back to my faith and eased me from my political fervor. Not to mention the style of writing itself, philosophy aside, was fantastic. Will listen to again and buy a physical version.

29 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

What is happening?

I'm seven hours in, and so far I get the sense that FD is playing a joke on the reader. Listening to this is like watching an interminable Seinfeld episode being broadcast in a language you don't know with no subtitles. Normally I'd be all about satire, but never has a story been more expertly crafted to lead the reader into hopeless confusion. Since it's FD, I have to believe it was intentional, but that doesn't make it palatable.

12 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Intermittent GREATNESS and prolonged boredom..

Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of the great authors in Russian Literature, and Devils (sometimes also called The Possessed or Demons) certainly lived up to the brilliant complexity which we love in classic literature..

George Guidall is widely recognized as the world's most acclaimed and prolific audiobook narrator. His rendition of Devils is probably the best you'll find on Audible (or anywhere for that matter).

Unfortunately, I would not recommend this particular audiobook. Devils is dotted with some of the GREATEST writing in Russian literature. However, that greatness is followed by the most prolonged pointless dialog ever written in Russian literature.. Devils "brilliant complexity which we love in classic literature" becomes it's own curse. I simply could not follow along.

I probably would have loved this book if I was a reader in the mid to late 1800's when Devils was first published. I would even love this book TODAY if I took the time to physically read it. Unfortunately, it doesn't work as an audiobook. Period.

10 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

amazing reader!

What did you like about this audiobook?

Beautiful, expressive, yet understated reading that does full justice to the irony in the writing. A troubling book that's political satire, dark comedy and a full parade of drama queens! Prescient of the horrors to come in Russia. Totally absorbing.

8 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Revolutionaries, Scholars, Scoundrels, & Nihilists

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Devils (1871-72; translation by Michael R. Katz 1992) depicts the end of the absurd and moving 20+ year platonic romance between Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky and Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina in the context of the possession of their provincial town by foreign radical ideas and homegrown atheist nihilists. The novel explores how dangerous ideas and words and writing can be (they can possess people); how revolutionary groups form and recruit and bind (possess) members and manipulate (possess) the masses into violent action; how fickle, foolish, mean, and malleable is public opinion; how defensive and inferiority complex ridden Russia was (especially vis-à-vis European culture); and how multiply motived, contradictory, and complex the human heart and mind are. It asserts the need for common human decency as a balm for if not a protection from abuse and exploitation. And for some kind of spiritual faith and moral purpose: “the last word is universal forgiveness.”

The novel powerfully reminds one that all too often charismatic and intelligent people who begin utopian revolutions are ultimately in it for power, and that, as one character muses at one point, “Convictions and human feeling—it seems they’re two different things,” with the latter superior to the former, despite the fact that politically driven people often lose sight of that. Dostoevsky anticipates and describes Stalin and Hitler.

The novel has many great points. Like the following:

--Fascinating characters (often morbidly so), like Stepan Trofimovich, the delusional, self-centered, spoiled, ineffectual scholar, and his amoral, manipulative, and destructive son Pyotr; Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin, the sane nihilistic rake, and his wealthy domineering mother Varvara Petrovna; and the earnest, ex-revolutionary student Ivan Pavlovich Shatov and his desperately self-willed friend Kirillov.

--Great scenes, like Stepan learning that he’s supposed to marry a young former student of his; Pyotr behaving so innocently impudent and crafty in his first appearance; some feckless young people visiting a revered arbitrary hermit-priest; Pyotr revealing why he’s so invested in Nikolai; Nikolai confessing to a retired bishop; the Group of Five meeting for the first time; a literary fete going off the rails; the convict Fedka asserting his independence; and Stepan walking on the road in cavalry boots. . .

--Keen and cynical wisdom about human nature vis-à-vis political schemers and dupes; revolutionaries and scoundrels; pseudo intellectuals and revered writers; aristocrats and peasants; atheists and Christians; Russia and Russians; public opinion and gossip. Just when it’s starting to feel sour and bleak, some fundamental love and belief almost redeems it (“Love is the crown of being”).

--An interesting narrator: he’s trying to make sense of the events of the novel for which he was often a passive eye-witness, recounting them about three months after they occurred and a “Commission of Inquiry” began investigating what happened. He’s given to irony (e.g., “An enormous subversive organization of thirteen members”), though he tries to honestly reveal both his “reliable sources” and the limits of his “own best surmises” about events.

Dostoevsky also, of course, writes great descriptions of people, like “In appearance Shatov closely resembled his convictions. He was clumsy, fair-haired, disheveled, short, broad-shouldered, thick-lipped, with very heavy, overhanging pale blond eyebrows, a furrowed brow, and an unfriendly, stubbornly downcast gaze that seemed ashamed of something.”

He also writes many great lines on:

--Love: “Even a louse can fall in love.”

--Human nature: “The horror and vague feeling of personal danger, added to the thrilling effect of a night fire, produce in the spectator (not, of course, in those whose houses have gone up in flames) a certain shock to the system and as it were a challenge to the destructive instincts which, alas, lie buried within each and every soul, even that of the meekest and most domestic civil servant…”

--America: “One has to be born in America, or at least live among them for many years, to become their equal.”

--Revolutionaries: “Why is it that all these desperate socialists and communists are all so incredibly miserly and acquisitive and proprietarial?”

--Religion: “The more impoverished an entire people is, the more stubbornly it dreams of reward in paradise.”

Audiobook reader George Guidall excels at voicing the characters (especially Pyotr, Stepan, the convict Fedka, and Captain Lebyadkin), but it’s difficult to understand his French when Stepan speaks it (which he often does). Many of the characters’ three names are exotic enough and similar-sounding enough to cause confusion, as with Mavriky Nikolaevich and Nikolai Vsevolodovich. The narrator refers to Nikolai as Nikolai Vsevolodovich, Nikolai, Nikolai Stavrogin, or Stavrogin. All this is to say that it might be easier to read the physical novel than to listen to the audiobook.

The book took me a LONG time to finish, and although the fault was mine because a trip interrupted my reading for three weeks, there are too many scenes with too much talking, and dealing with the book had already begun to feel like a not altogether pleasant chore even before that hiatus, and upon finishing it I felt freed from a kind of psychological bondage.

If you are a fan of Dostoesvsky, this book would surely be worth your while, but if you are new to him, I’d recommend starting with Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov.

5 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Even George can't save this one.

I read this classic twice thinking I'd missed something. In the end I just had trouble paying attention enough to keep track of the story. Given how terrorism is now a daily occurrence, one would think a book about anarchists would be topical. Dostoevsky is examining philosophical debates surrounding nihilism that was a pressing topic in Russian intellectual circles of his day. For me, however, (and I'm guessing for you as well), this book is too dated to engage modern readers. This is the first book Guidall has narrated that I have not liked. Guidall selects his projects well and having his name on the cover is usually a book's best reference. Suffer from insomnia? Buy this book and let George's melodious voice rock you to sleep knowing there's not much of a plot you'll be missing.

5 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

delicious

I am enjoying the performance of this book so much. I'm smirking and giggling and laughing out loud. Bravo to George Guidall!
Will I ever read Dostoevsky again or simply enjoy listening!!

5 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

narrator

naerator. has awful syntax and grammatical comprehension. embellishes voice to much which for me made me unable to even enjoy story. is a to pretty narrative and loses flow.

4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile