Talk:Demons (Dostoevsky novel)

Plot

Unfortunately I am bout to remove the extremely long plot, since it is filled with opinions of the plot writer, and as such constitutes WP:Original research, inadmissible in wikipedia. Also the plot is unreadable and fails to demonstrate the main points discussed by the critics of the novel, and as such, fails to provide encyclopedic value. Please review carefully the wikipedia guidelines, MOS:PLOT. -M.Altenmann >t 18:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A plot summary is concerned with the primary source i.e. the novel itself, not with discussion and criticism in secondary sources. This is mentioned in MOS:PLOT. I understand that it is very long and complicated but I think the extreme complexity of the plot warrants this amount of detail. I would dispute that it is "unreadable", just very difficult because the novel itself is in fact very difficult.

You say it is "filled with opinions of the plot writer and as such constitutes original research." Perhaps you can tell me which parts you think are original research? So, starting with the summary of Part I, what in particular constitutes original research? I can either refer you to the chapter or passage it is summarizing, or, if I can't do this, remove it or reword it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Plot section is too damned long. Who would read it? 220.255.193.76 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone with a genuine interest in understanding the novel might read it, or at least read part of it. It's an 800 page novel with an extremely complex, multi-layered plot - very difficult to summarize coherently. It might be of help to someone trying to decipher the intricacies of the plot in the novel. But you're right, it is a bit damned long. Harold the Sheep (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is too long. Because of the length it inevitably veers into interpretation, much of which is subject to disagreement. I think the goal should be to interest the reader (of the article) in reading the book, not to let him feel that he has read the "Cliff Notes" version of the book. I have added a topic about eliminating discussion of "At Tikhon's", which is NOT part of the book. Raskolovich (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thematic content

For a long time this section has just had one sub-section - 'ideologies', so I have deleted the section and incorporated its content into the Characters (Shigalyev and Shatov) and Commentary sections. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot tag

In my opinion it is not possible to "comfortably" navigate the plot of this novel: it is long, opaque, complex and multilinear, and demands a lot of the reader. This is intentional on the author's part and should be reflected in the summary, or the plot will tend to be over-simplified and misrepresented, as it was previously. In terms of the standard length for plot summaries, I think this is a case of wp:Iar.

Making the summary shorter might be a good idea, but are there any suggestions on how it should be done, taking in to consideration the novel itself, not merely the wikipedia guidelines. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No response, so I'm removing the tag. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Any long novel will have many threads that weave in and out of the story as a whole. It is enough to delineate them without exposition. It is enough to refer to the themes of the novel without explicating them. A plot summary is like a coat hangar. It cannot possibly do justice to the novel any more than a coat hangar can do justice to the coats that are hung on it. It is unreasonable to expect, or attempt, it to do so. Raskolovich (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Inception

@Kingstowngalway: There is some good information in your Inception section, particularly relating to Ivanov, but I think it would be better incorporated, in a condensed form and without so many quotes, into the Background section. By removing the Background section you removed all reference to the much larger scale work that the original 'pamphlet novel' relating to the Nechaev affair was incorporated into. All sources talk about this, and Dostoevsky himself wrote about the Verkhovensky characters becoming secondary to Stavrogin as work progressed on the novel.

I have no issue with, say, combining both sections. There's further info on Nechayev that may be relevant. Specifically, how his writings after the Ivanov murder advocated systematic politicide as soon as the Romanovs were topped. Kingstowngalway (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be relevant to an article on Nechayev, not necessarily this novel.

I think you are over-weighting the Nechayev-inspired side of the novel. Even the character of Pyotr Verkhovensky is not actually meant to be identified with Nechayev, though its creation was initially inspired by his activities; and the murder of Ivanov, on which the murder of Shatov was very loosely based, ended up being just one murder among a whole bunch of murders and suicides and catastrophes and scandals in the finished novel. What you have added about the Nechayev-inspired side of the novel refers to the initial anti-nihilist idea, i.e. before the novel was actually written. In other words, interesting and relevant though it is, it relates to a novel that never actually got written. The novel Demons, the subject of this article, is far more complex and multilinear than the initial idea, and had an entirely different centre of gravity—Stavrogin, not Nechayev/Verkhovensky.

There is already significant reference to Nechayev in the 2 paragraphs of the Background section. My suggestion is condensing what you have added about Ivanov, the murder and its effect on Dostoevsky, losing the quotes from Kjetsaa, and incorporating it into what is already there. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't NEED to know anything about Nechayev to appreciate the novel. It was not written to elucidate Nechayev, but to express Dostoevsky's personal vision of his world. Raskolovich (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Synopsis"

I don't think the plot is nearly detailed enough. After all, the work is out of copyright so we could just insert the full text. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What clever irony! Do you have something constructive to say? Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No; I was merely warning Ys that I was going to try cutting down the plotLe Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank-you for the "warning."

It's probably a good idea to try cutting down the plot, but I would still like to discuss the changes if you are interested. Some of what might seem to be excessive detail is actually of vital significance to the plot. For example, you have removed:

In the uproar that follows no-one notices Shatov, who has not said a word the entire time, walking across the room to stand directly in front of Nikolai Vsevolodovich. He looks him straight in the face for a long time without saying anything: the room goes quiet. Suddenly, he hits him in the face with all his might. Stavrogin staggers, recovers himself, and seizes Shatov; but he immediately takes his hands away, turns pale, and stands there calmly returning Shatov's gaze. It is Shatov who lowers his eyes, and leaves, apparently crushed. Liza screams and collapses on the floor in a faint.

and replaced it with:

Shatov for no apparent cause then struck Stavrogin a blow in the face; the latter managed to control his wrath.

Firstly, the entire lengthy paragraph has been in the present tense and now abruptly changes to the past tense. My point though is that the removed details are significant, heralding as yet obscure aspects of the plot relating to Shatov, Stavrogin and the nature of the relationship between them. The scene ends with Liza screaming and collapsing in a faint, so this also seems to me to be a significant event that should be mentioned. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph still exists; if you don't mind I'll have a hack at the plot and then you can try to revive it. Since you're away now, I'll do what I want but feel free to change anything back. Comparing it to the plots of other novels, it is way too detailed to my thinking. What is the relevance of Leisa's faint by the way?Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

At this stage in the plot's development neither the reader nor most of the characters know the full relevance of any of the dramatic events that unfold in this long and very complex scene: that is the point, there is an intrigue, there is deception, all sorts of obviously significant things are happening but no-one knows exactly what they signify, whether it is Marya Lebyadkin, the Captain's ravings, Pyotr Verkhovensky's stories, Shatov punching Stavrogin in the face, or Liza fainting. We know that Liza fainting is relevant because it is the final dramatic event in the scene, part 1 of the novel ends at precisely this point: "to this day I can still hear the sound of her head hitting the carpet." Liza has an attack of hysterics earlier in the scene, which I cut from the summary to try to keep it shorter. Liza's hysterics and fainting are signs of what is going on inside her as she tries to fathom what is going on with Stavrogin, and the interaction between Shatov and Stavrogin is the final straw.

I understand that, comparing it to the plot summaries of other novels, it is way too long. My point is that it is a mistake to compare this particular plot to the average plot, and there should be an element of Ignore All Rules. It is long, dense, dark, labyrinthine and polyphonic: not at all like the average plot. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

By "average plot" do you mean something like "Middlemarch" or "The Red and the Black"? LOL Raskolovich (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The point he is making is legitimate. The degree of inclusion you are requiring of yourself can only be fulfilled by reading the entire novel. It would be better if you acknowledged that. You could refer to the depth and complexity of the novel without duplicating it. Raskolovich (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@De la Marck: It is difficult to see what you are doing with the plot summary, based on the changes to part 1. It's not really any shorter, the prose quality and continuity has been diminished, and a number of inaccuracies have been introduced. For example:

(referring to the Lebyadkins): "They live in mysterious seclusion." They don't, it is common knowledge that they live at Filippov's house with Shatov and Kirillov, and their affairs are pretty well-known to everyone because of the Captain's drunkenness. Pyotr Stepanovich moves them into seclusion in Part 2.

(referring to Julia Mikhaylovna): "She has an active hand in the town's affairs and attempts to remodel its society, being especially interested in the revolutionaries of the younger generation who she wants to convert and 'save'. Consequently admits them to her receptions and thus lends them countenance." Apart from the odd prose, this is also inaccurate. Pyotr Stepanovich hasn't arrived yet: nothing of this kind develops until part 2 of the novel.

(referring to Stepan Trofimovich): "Because of his quandam position as tutor to her son Nikolai Vsevolodovich, Verkhovensky has lived with Stavrogina for the past two decades..." His 'quondam' position is not the cause of his remaining there for twenty years. The causes relate to the peculiarities of their characters and the nature of their personal relationship.

There are a number of other problems. I'll probably revert back to the previous version unless you particularly want to keep going with it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to when I said that the length led inevitably to interpretation, which is subject to disagreement. If you are presenting something in a plot summary that someone might disagree with, then it does not belong in a plot summary. Imagine the actual plot of "Notes from the Underground". Compare that to the actual substance of the novella. You are trying to summarize too much: the novel, not the plot of the novel. If the summary of the novel were completely accurate, there would be no need to read the novel. But that will never happen, so stick to the coat hangar. Only the novel can do justice to the novel. Raskolovich (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You are making the novel so dry and lifeless. You make explicit things that are meant to be inferred and also happen to be hysterically funny. Stepan is not a quintessential intellectual of the '40s. He is a very queer duck. By trying to tell too much - by interpreting - you make him something that he isn't. You don't even mention what Dostoevsky is trying to do with his narration, i.e. introduce an element of uncertainty to the narrator. The unreliable narrator, which was previously done in the first person, as in "Barry Lyndon", was possibly lying, but Dostoevsky's narrators are unreliable because of the incompleteness and second-hand nature of their information.

These things only come across in the reading of the text. You can't convey them explicitly to the reader. If you could, there would be no need for fiction. Wittgenstein said, "Anything that can be said can be said clearly. However, there are some things that cannot be said." I would add that these "things that cannot be said" are the province of art. You should stick to the things that CAN be said. Raskolovich (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Matryosha's age

In my copy of the text (an Andrew MacAndrew translation entitled The Possessed), Matryosha's age is given as twelve, not eleven. Can someone please double check? Seems odd that different translators would interpret an integer value differently. Thanks. The tamale (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

They didn't interpret an integer differently, they probably just used different versions. Dostoevsky revised the chapter several times due to the publisher's concerns. In the different versions, Matryosha varied in age from 10 to 14. In the original manuscript she is described as "in her 12th year", so some interpret this as 11. However, 12 does seem to be the age generally given for Matryosha, in secondary sources as well. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"At Tikhon's"

This censored chapter should not be discussed as though it were a missing piece of the novel. It was intended to be a different novel, and when it was censored, Dostoevsky took the story in an entirely different direction. Dostoevsky never went back to revise his works. He was so in need of money that as soon as he finished a chapter, he sent it to the magazine to be published. It is my opinion that the censor did Dostoevsky the biggest favor of his life. The idea of a horrific murderer as a Christ figure may seem intriguing as a concept, but the censored chapter shows how poorly it works in print. Once the deed is recounted there is no further mention of the girl or the moral implications for Stavrogin. The two men only talk about Stavrogin's "great burden" and some undisclosed act that he is planning to commit, presumably to expiate his guilt (presumed by me anyway). I found Tikhon himself to be morally repugnant. At any rate the novel is much better without this chapter. And I don't think that it should be used to interpret the novel that Dostoevsky ultimately wrote, which is far superior to the one he was planning before this chapter was rejected. Raskolovich (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)