The Devils : A psychological fabric

Dostoevsky with its dense prose introduces us gradually into a story that, according to its style, which is Maraya unravel the psychology of the characters, but it talks about ideas, politics and the revolutionaries. Is sometimes too much caricature, so far as to rub comedy, almost causing a feeling of black humor and grim in the reader. Yet there is no mistake, like other works of this acclaimed and controversial writer, was a tragedy from head to toe.

As I said, true to his style, you crumbles psychology of the characters, which seems to be no average: after all are crazy, timidity, humility repellency or malevolent, the more day. Disfigurement is total, almost theatrical, in order to glorify either maligned or other attributes, or awaken in the reader hatred, pity or bewilderment, Dostoevsky makes it through the narrator's own. And not just in theatrical caricaturization of characters, but also how the plot unfolds, sometimes caught with forceps, wandering the hills of Ubeda in the density at which it referred. However, we should not dismiss it because it is of great literary value.

This drama, tragedy, or rather, psychological, is the underlying idea of the clash of ideologies and the revolutionary intellectuals of the different types of both moderates and radicals, with the desire of ordinary people. Draw a deep separation and lack thereof (ie, intellectual) and from among the people. Slavophiles profuse, is rooted in the tradition as a remedy against the ideas came from abroad.

This happens already to describe all the intellectuals influenced by ideas coming from outside (Europe), and not understand, or even if not never want to do, the Russian people. Although this area is almost theatrical, in superlative exaggeration of characters and positions that each character based, you can also make clear some issues to other situations more plausible, as it were.

The two principal characters on which the plot is resolved Pyotr Stepanovich (Verkhovensky onwards) and Nikolai Vsevolodovich (Stavrogin onwards). Two parallel stories are linked, but that could well have been written separately. There is the political plot, based on a true story that shocked the Dostoyevsky himself, which is responsible Verkhovensky, also based on a real character (Nechayev Sergey), on the other is more psychological fabric of the issue of which the protagonist is Stavrogin.

Verkhovensky is the son of Stepan Trofimovich, and this relationship is presented in the first allegory. Stepan Trofimovich is a cautious liberal, vain and "old" intellectual, poetic and somewhat selfish, bombastic, even whimsical. While your child (which does not fulfill all his life and leaves by some relatives of his deceased wife), is a nihilistic, cynical and manipulative (which does not hesitate to use others for their own ends, looking at the other as useless offal), without any kind of questioning we look disgusting and repellent with a detachment towards the feelings or emotions almost unimaginable to even the coldest of men. This list refers to the familiarity of ideologies, their kinship. As some are misrepresentations of others, stressing certain ideas over others, even about the psychology of the ideologue.

These ideas are taken and taken out, mixed with others, the pleasure of the creator in question, its subjective perception, and then in that medley was born a new way of thinking. For example, Verkhovensky that throughout the novel is caricatured as a mediocre displays his mediocrity in thought, taking as a starting point for some values of the thinking of its parent, for example reads: "Shigaliov is a genius! [...] He has invented the 'equality'! [...] A high level of science and education only to exceptional minds, and it is the most exceptional minds! Exceptional minds have attained power and have always been despotic. [...] In the herd there will necessarily be equal (Behold the doctrine of Shigaliov!). Verkhovensky said in the state of drunkenness.

Ie, becomes owner of the idea of equality and let fly to the point where mediocrity is to be fair: we all have to be poor to be equal. It is the misrepresentation of ideas, is being built as well as ideologies. It also suggests that family relationship to which it referred. Because the debauchery of thought in one direction, the ends are achieved by inertia. In this example, if extols equality to the extreme, just to eliminate the natural differences. Finally comes the radical, in that same conversation uncovers Verkhovensky as a despot. To achieve its purpose, to impose the system was to achieve power and destroy everything before. He says: "proclaimed the destruction. [...] The sea was choppy, and everything will collapse cotarro false. And then we think about how to lift the stone building. "Referring to him and Stavrogin, who wants to use as a" savior "of the people before the debauchery, which he denied or ignored.

That is, the ideologue is a despot in power ever since the idea is ready to do anything. But not even this idea is the idea that pure cree, but is derived from its own personality, its way of being. And everyone who has used the idea fits best according to their personality, it is therefore dissociable ideology as an imaginary character and psychology of one who supports it. Dostoevsky is shown describing the various conspirators, ranging from philanthropists such as the Shigaliov (which concludes that for a hopeless 10% of humanity can live in the remaining 90% equity has to live in a kind of slavery ), or other diverse as humanists Verginski to rascals and envious as irremediable Liputin or Liamshin like clowns, they are slowly enveloped with no possibility of escape in the end given that that is not a game.

It also makes a nod to the furor and innocence of youth, with young students who appeared at the meeting with a desire to grab attention. But especially with Erkel, who makes a late appearance, a poor devil that "the cause" is tangled and accepted without any further order Verkhovensky saw this as a kind of illuminated or elected. It is the exaltation or buenismo, when many young people with the best of ideas, is dragged to sustain without more radical positions. Even manipulated to undertake actions reprehensible. This, though average, is atoned for by the narrator and the majority of the people, by innocence, although not to twist your foot on his promise not to reveal to anyone, even if all they had sung. And all for the cause.

Ultimately, Dostoevsky, through Trofimovich Stepan, shows what is the reality, away from those abstract ideas that underpin much as some others. In his latest adventure or hiking, though undertaken by any one discovers "the true Russian life" (or said similar words), ie the peasantry. Everything takes time in a strange, almost surreal world for the old Stepan Trofimovich. Sofya Matveyevna, a poor wretched portrayed as a poor and humble soul selling gospels, acts as a redemptive or rather confessor. Suddenly, that poor idealist after headlong encounter with reality, and helped the sick delirium, looks forward to seeing what the real Russian spirit. I think this is one of the great lessons of the novel, but not devoid of controversy, however.

To begin with, how is this innocent and humble spirit with which he portrayed the peasantry Dostoevsky most? Then you may actually be the majority, but also recounts unhappy at the poor of the city. For example the case of the factory, which minimizes by saying that only about seventy workmen had gone to protest after the dismissal (of a total of about nine). Of course it would be unfair to say that also portrays the entire class in the same way, because it described as some gentuza.

But I might be mixing two things here, because it seems to separate the class into two: the peasantry and that of the city. Of the city leaving many unfortunates, who are partakers of the misdeeds committed in the festival Iulya Mihailovna. Of course many of the intellectuals to participate in meetings or in the various events are also different from those estates. However, as I said, does not portray them all equally (or the character or intentions, which I will obviously even), and join like-minded but not all stem from the same premises, for example not all come the conclusion or are partakers of socialism for the same reasons, and certainly it can be deduced by making the descriptions of the various characters are actually many philanthropists.

Thus, if one can say that many are in disagreement, and entitled to be, and others in his humility and innocence conform prefer, which of the two positions we should be? Because it seems that this latest adventure of Stepan Trofimovich, by defending his affiliations, Dostoevsky we want to prove that we have learned to respect the people's true personality: his humility, piety and simplicity. He has learned to respect over the intellectual ideas, often detached from the real society. That is, people want to live well, and need not be saved by the intellectual ideas. Yet this is contradicted by certain events, such as the factory. You can not deny that there are some social problems, and perhaps if the farmers want to change things (at least some).

Certainly things have changed a lot, and the circumstances are different, but I believe that many conclusions can be drawn however. Perhaps wanting to see different characters in different societies is wanting to see too. It is true that cultures and even biological differences may further enhance a personality type or another, but the differences between humans, in essence, is minimal. Therefore it can be assumed that all societies tend to follow suit. And Russia itself could be a good example, so that after Dostoevsky would happen, that ignoring the plight of the people, based on his humility, not a good long-term strategy to anyone. Yet another conclusion can be drawn, is that intellectuals, ideologues, and even idealistic, often exceeding their zeal, even when it comes buenistas positions are able to ignore the social reality to which they intend to save at all costs, even beyond it. This is as applicable today as it was yesterday or will be tomorrow.

Although in reality this is not the conclusion that Dostoevsky wants to go, if one can be drawn from his account. But the real conclusion and had lied to the last: the ugly at the expense of all that is satisfied, ignoring its own personality, carrying out the idea despotically if necessary. That is the character of Verkhovensky: destroy everything that you want to rebuild again as your idea, and use any method to achieve this. And even thought he is in possession of the truth, which is unique among all the riffraff that can understand, the only man who "knows what is the first step and how it" (her words). One who bolted for his supreme idea is capable of carrying it out, even ignoring the fact that even cree know everything when in fact all ignored.

In return for this despicable being, who is being awakened from his dream, has to find the truth. This character is embodied by the romantic and tormented Ivan Shatov. Which calls all ignorant at one point early in the novel, I said that Russia did not really know, either. And so far bears his thought, despite not believing in God, believe in him. Because it recognized the religiosity of the Russian people, and therefore must embrace the tradition of it. This same conclusion is reached that the final Stepan Trofimovich (I am not talking exclusively about God, which could be something else, but to accept the Russian). It is the other extreme, that despite not believe it, just convincing to believe it, because it should be.

Although Dostoevsky clearly takes sides with one of the two extremes, no doubt convinced of seeing reality as it is. But maybe you do not really so, but to take sides with the weaker (represented here by the peasantry) and humble. While it is certainly noble, we must not forget that this is not the complete reality. And therefore we must not ignore then nonconforming parts, because if you can not end up inadvertently helping to shift the Verkhovensky, reaches its silly purposes.

So far the discussion of the politics of the novel, then the psychological fabric.