Someone gave a poor rating to an excellent book. It is not only an excellent book that this insipid man gave a poor rating to, but it is an excellent book by Dostoevsky. Moreover, the reviewer persisted in using words like 'penultimate', a special academic word that's probably on the English Lit GRE.
Here is the BAD review of Demons by Dostoevsky:
This book is simply horrible. No one should read it. I've now read more
or less all of this author's works and all I can say is that he didn't
have a very good command of basic narrative mechanics. For all his
celebrated genius, and it is considerable, the man just couldn't tell a
good story to save his life.So
weak are his transitions, that, for example, his narrator constantly
has to break in and say: "no one could have expected the following
denoument," or "but I need to elaborate on this minor character." That
really gets tiresome after a while. His confused plot stucture has the
very annoying effect of introducing major changes in the characters at
exactly the moment that you have forgotten all about them, viz, the
penultimate chapter that concerns the important revelation of a figure
who hasn't been mentioned for about 200 pages.
The book
itself--structured so to speak around a political murder--moves like a
snail hitched to a team of other, slower snails. The murder doesn't
happen until after about 500 painful pages. The entire first part, some
200 pages, can be entirely skipped without any serious loss of
comprehension.
Reactionaries like this book because it pokes fun
at forerunners of the Russian revolution. I'm sure that there were lots
of whackos involved in the whole affair and its aftermath. But all I
can see that the author does is ridicule the nihilists. Yet some very
well respected philosophers were nihilists, and, golly, the revolution
must have been about something more than just murder and mayhem.
(Wasn't Tzarist oppression at least a little part of it?)
Unlike
the author's other (badly written) books like the Idiot and Crime and
Punishment, this one even lacks the sort of transcendent moments of
philosophical dialogue. These epiphanies (unlike Joyce's) take place in
dialoges and are like the revelations one gets during a seizure
(Dostovesky was an epileptic)--the conversations that Raskolnikov has
with Sophia and the Prince Myshkin are examples. Personally, I
ultimately didn't find those infrequent passages profound enough to
make it worth trodging through C & P and the Idiot, but it was a
close call. However Demons doesn't even give you those wonderful
experiences--just a straight ahead unpolished rant.
The best
thing about this book is the wonderful cover that graces the Vintage
edition. It's a woodcut from Lynd Ward's God's Man. It's appropriate
because one of the many themes that gets garbled amid the novel's 714
pages is the struggle between humans and demonic ideas. If you want to
read an interesting take on a man being haunted by demons, read God's
Man by all means, and not this jumbled "classic."
There is a logical fallacy at the exposition of his tasteless review: nothing by Dostoevsky is simply horrible. Some of it is horrible, but in a delicious way that appeals to the neurotic axe murdering side of one's funny bone.
This response is smile inducing. Nothing better than an overly formal attack to spite huffity puffity stupidity. This review says much about the reviewer and little about Dostoyevsky.
Those who understand the Russian genius might even laugh at this
reviewer, whose tirade against a novel loved by "reactionaries" is
reminiscent of Kirillov's rants. The
book is ferociously funny from the start, and its ironies, political
barbs and hilarious insights kept me riveted throughout. Those who are
sophisticated enough to see the life force and humor in this
masterpiece will not be disappointed, and certainly will not lament the
adroit build-up to the murder. Additionally, the reviewer displays
remarkable naivite by the redundant statement: "The entire first part
... can be entirely skipped without any serious loss of comprehension."
This edition is an excellent translation into readable English.
Chatboard (0)