Scan barcode
chillcloud's review against another edition
4.0
This book was a whole lot different from any Dostoyevsky I’ve read, I did not finish his other works that I started because I seem to only pick him up in the beginning of a reading slump, but I can tell that this book is really different from the two I started. And it makes sense when you understand his life, this was one of his early books and crime and punishment and the idiot were written after him being sentenced to force labor in Siberia. It clearly shows that his atitude towards the world clearly changed.
This was a wholesome rural life book, with a great antagonist to hate and some really characterized individuals, it was a nice late spring read and I’m wondering if maybe I should read Dostoyevsky chronologically.
This was a wholesome rural life book, with a great antagonist to hate and some really characterized individuals, it was a nice late spring read and I’m wondering if maybe I should read Dostoyevsky chronologically.
ju_shi's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
annenikoline's review against another edition
3.0
The Village of Stepanchikovo by Fyodor Dostoyevsky deserves four or perhaps five stars for its writing and language and three stars for the story itself. The reason for this is because there where parts I just wanted to skip because the plot was moving so very slow at times. What kept me going was definitely the beautiful language and writing; I felt like Romeo when he sees Juliet at the balcony with the moon above. It is really that good.
This novel is also some of Dostoyevsky's minor works, but as a huge fan of his famous books I simply had to read this one as well. How he has developed as a write is very clear if you compare The Village of Stepanchikovo to Crime and Punishment or even The Karamazov Brothers, however, I still think, despite the fact that this novel is a comedy where every character changes personality from page to page, this has a great depth to it which Dostoyevsky is so known for.
This novel is also some of Dostoyevsky's minor works, but as a huge fan of his famous books I simply had to read this one as well. How he has developed as a write is very clear if you compare The Village of Stepanchikovo to Crime and Punishment or even The Karamazov Brothers, however, I still think, despite the fact that this novel is a comedy where every character changes personality from page to page, this has a great depth to it which Dostoyevsky is so known for.
droopyswan's review against another edition
4.0
Neću da pametujem ili glumim poznavaoca Dostojevskog, s obzirom na to da sam pročitala još jedino još obavezniji roman (čije ime svi znamo), ali "Stepančikovo" nije taj rang. Svakako, ubacivanje naratora i ich forme, zanimljivo je i novo, ali knjiga je svojevremeni Dostojevski. Onaj na koga sam navikla je bezvremeni, vanvremenski čak. Takvog ga volim.
Svejedno, i ovde ima gomile pozitivnih tačaka, pre svega maestralni lik Fome Fomiča...
Svejedno, i ovde ima gomile pozitivnih tačaka, pre svega maestralni lik Fome Fomiča...
deardostoevsky's review against another edition
4.0
"Dostoevsky is finished. He will no longer write anything important." is what one of the editors commented on this novel, which was written as an attempt to re-enter in the literary world after his exile and absence for almost a decade. Sadly, for the editor, he could not be more wrong (and thus chimes in The Grand Inquisitor with the Devil himself as a nightmarish dream).
The Village of Stepanchikovo, like Uncle's Dream, is a comedy. The characters so created, though in a comedic tone, mirror the reality of the obnoxious duplicity in the name of virtue and honour.
Fomo Fomich being the centre of it all, he is everything wrong, but even in him there could be a philosophy which might support the deluding tantrums of this man. Or perhaps we are judging him wrong, perhaps he genuinely believes himself to be noble and generous; all his actions aligned to this fantasy of his being? Well it is for the reader to judge. I loved to hate his eccentricities yet Dostoevsky gave him my favourite quote from the book,
If you want to know what I've been suffering, go to Shakespeare. In his Hamlet, he describes the state of my soul.
Yegor, the Uncle, is another intriguing character, who is central to the entire story. He is noble in its very literal sense, which tends towards idiocy. But even through his submissive meekness, he shows some strength of character occasionally, specially when he is not directly involved, again solidifying his nobility.
In the narrator, we find a young intelligent man, who is profound and learned but vain in his intellect, which is probably a jibe at his own younger self, making the character more vivid. Sergey Alexandrovich, is mostly a spectator and hardly participates in the flow of the story, except the reason for his arrival. It could be attributed to his shyness and good-humoured sense, who though advises the chief actors but never participates completely.
Nastasya, in her brief appearances, is strong and proud, which makes me wish to have been able to know her more, but that wouldn't have helped the mystifying aspect of hers, needed for the plot.
This satire of a hypocrite society takes many digs at the intellectual delusions of various educated men, the obsession with a foreign culture, the illusionary belief of self-sacrifice in the guise of selfishness, the literary intellectuals and many more.
Fun fact, one of these digs were made on 'The Contemporary' (whose editor has been quoted above) as a reply to various jeers made by them on Dostoevsky during his absence.
The story started off somewhat plainly but the second half makes up for it.
In Dostoevsky's own words (and a perfect way to sum it up)
"The long story that I am writing for Katkov displeases me very much and goes against the grain. But I have already written a great deal, it's impossible to throw it away in order to begin another, and I have to pay back a debt."
which eventually transformed to
"I am convinced that there are many weak and bad things in my novel; but I am convinced - I stake my life on it! - that there are very fine things. They sprang from the heart. There are scenes of high comedy that Gogol would have signed without hesitation.
And I am convinced too that though tedious and lagging at parts, it does have elements worth acknowledging. The second part of the novel feels more like a Dostoevskian tale though very different with its comedic elements, the ending being extremely unique in his literary world.
(Also, three more to go and I would have read all sixteen of his novels/novellas.)
The Village of Stepanchikovo, like Uncle's Dream, is a comedy. The characters so created, though in a comedic tone, mirror the reality of the obnoxious duplicity in the name of virtue and honour.
Fomo Fomich being the centre of it all, he is everything wrong, but even in him there could be a philosophy which might support the deluding tantrums of this man. Or perhaps we are judging him wrong, perhaps he genuinely believes himself to be noble and generous; all his actions aligned to this fantasy of his being? Well it is for the reader to judge. I loved to hate his eccentricities yet Dostoevsky gave him my favourite quote from the book,
If you want to know what I've been suffering, go to Shakespeare. In his Hamlet, he describes the state of my soul.
Yegor, the Uncle, is another intriguing character, who is central to the entire story. He is noble in its very literal sense, which tends towards idiocy. But even through his submissive meekness, he shows some strength of character occasionally, specially when he is not directly involved, again solidifying his nobility.
In the narrator, we find a young intelligent man, who is profound and learned but vain in his intellect, which is probably a jibe at his own younger self, making the character more vivid. Sergey Alexandrovich, is mostly a spectator and hardly participates in the flow of the story, except the reason for his arrival. It could be attributed to his shyness and good-humoured sense, who though advises the chief actors but never participates completely.
Nastasya, in her brief appearances, is strong and proud, which makes me wish to have been able to know her more, but that wouldn't have helped the mystifying aspect of hers, needed for the plot.
This satire of a hypocrite society takes many digs at the intellectual delusions of various educated men, the obsession with a foreign culture, the illusionary belief of self-sacrifice in the guise of selfishness, the literary intellectuals and many more.
Fun fact, one of these digs were made on 'The Contemporary' (whose editor has been quoted above) as a reply to various jeers made by them on Dostoevsky during his absence.
The story started off somewhat plainly but the second half makes up for it.
In Dostoevsky's own words (and a perfect way to sum it up)
"The long story that I am writing for Katkov displeases me very much and goes against the grain. But I have already written a great deal, it's impossible to throw it away in order to begin another, and I have to pay back a debt."
which eventually transformed to
"I am convinced that there are many weak and bad things in my novel; but I am convinced - I stake my life on it! - that there are very fine things. They sprang from the heart. There are scenes of high comedy that Gogol would have signed without hesitation.
And I am convinced too that though tedious and lagging at parts, it does have elements worth acknowledging. The second part of the novel feels more like a Dostoevskian tale though very different with its comedic elements, the ending being extremely unique in his literary world.
(Also, three more to go and I would have read all sixteen of his novels/novellas.)
kiishiar's review against another edition
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
kelseak96's review against another edition
challenging
funny
lighthearted
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
lennby's review against another edition
3.0
Good enough, if you can get through the opening where the characters are tediously described before they are actually introduced. Dostoyevsky's early attempt at a comedic would-be play which ended up with as an absurd novel about absurdly dysfunctional society life, with a tyrant-fool-savant character at its heart.