#marya timofeevna

[simpleart]

Continuing my drawings of Demons characters. Now it's Stepan Trofimovich and Marya Timofeevna

[annebrontesrequiem]

If Marya Timofeevna dies by this end of this book I'm resurrecting Dostoevsky and sending him back to fucking Siberia

[tinytimism]

i think pyotr and marya could be good friends if under the right circumstances. they would have loud and lively conversations about the weirdest shit and get sideyes from everyone around them and they would laugh like hyenas at each other’s jokes and marya would assist in pyotr’s lil pranks and schemes. i think that would be nice :)

[cohendyke]

hi! do you recommend reading demons/have any tips? i recently read crime and punishment and im trying to get into more ruslit

hi! this is going to be so fucking long im sorry in advance lmao

overall i really liked it, crime and punishment is still number one for me but this is a close second (until i finish tbk and notes from underground.) i know some people (cough, redditors) hate it because it's pretty long for like. three things to happen at the very end but!! i would argue that a big part of the point of the book is how the village and the different classes within interact. it's not plot driven, but it's also not meant to be plot driven; its a satire of real people who dostoevsky knew of and hated lmfao. (side note i love how so many of his works are thinly veiled criticisms of shit he hated. he is So Interesting to me) demons is also pretty swag because you could make the argument that multiple characters can be easily read as gay which adds SO MUCH. (the big one is pyotr verkhovensky, but they’re all kinda 💅 ) no spoilers though if you’ve been on my blog since i finished you’ve probably seen them but there is one chapter that is very very emotional and touching and i was crying... iykyk. anyway the rest is under a cut

some things that would be helpful when reading this is for starters, reading it on a regular schedule; there are a lot of details early on that i forgot because i was just picking it up when i felt like it/when i had time. also, the pevear/volokhonsky translation hits (there are a lot of scenes with word choices that made me go umm... gay.... so if that’s your thing...) and the appendices are very in depth and very explanantory (demons is verryyy 1860s russia and there are a ton of references to that and i, as a 21st century north american, did not understand at all.) It took me 3.5 months to finish demons, but i wasn't reading it very consistently. Finally, i think most editions/translations have the chapter 'at tikhons' as an appendix, and apparently it was one that dostoevsky wanted to include, but wasn't allowed to. definitely read it, either right after the chapter that replaced it, or the end of the book. (i read it after i finished the book)

Here are some themes/devices to keep an eye out that i looked for that are pretty significant imo

what is stavrogins deal? is he the mastermind/god people seem to think he is? is he a villain or is he just caught in a shitty situation?

DEFINITELY read into christian imagery and allusions. note allusions to the holy family (i picked up on two, there probably are more) and who is being called a christ figure, and who is calling them that? are they right?

what is the deal between stepan trofimovich and varvara petrovna? what events can they be blamed for? are they just as bad as pyotr/the revolutionary circle?

likewise, take note of things that are called demonic, insane, possessed, etc. note when they happen as well, and the frequency.

try to pinpoint when things start to go wrong for everyone/when fate is sealed.

look at the main guys in the revolutionary circle, and which ideologies they seem to represent, as well as their main conflicts. what are their main personality traits?

the ladies, both Stavorgins Sluts (sorry marya timofeevna:( ) and the rich old ladies. how are they hypocritical/ironic? are they victims or enablers of their men (specifically stavrogin and the verkhovenskys) which of them are ignorant (or are they just stupid? note: definitely not a feminist novel.)

a lot of people (not just tumblrinas) read pyotr verkhovensky as kind of gay when it comes to stavrogin. is he actually, or is he acting to further his schemes as some sort of fucked up flattery? how is this expressed through the eyes of other characters around him?

what is the deal with kirillov and shatov? what do their philosophies say about one another and their relationship (pertaining to like. literary analysis but also are they gay?)

obviously this is a critique of nihilism/atheism/socialism in russia in the 1860s but i found that a lot of the sentiments and the r/epublican party/ m*ga movement. do you agree? what do you recognize from today’s politics? 

if you read this mess of a book (cue white mom sign that says bless this mess, because there is so much drama ) i hope you enjoy it and please like. talk to me about it i need to scream about this criminally underrated book.

[incorrectlit]

A comprehensive ranking of Dostoevsky’s hottest men (by me, a lesbian)

1. Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin (Demons): this man is so fucking hot he borders on being too much. Dostoevsky dedicated an like an entire page to how hot Stavrogin is. His terribleness just makes him hotter, and everyone in the book agrees with me on this. Literally everyone wants this man. Liza fucks him. Marya Timofeevna marries him. 99% sure Verkhovensky would fuck him if given the chance. Even Shatov seems like he was once gay for Stavrogin. What can I say? Stavrogin is just Like That. 

2. Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov): THIS ONE SEEMS TO BE CONTROVERSIAL.  Mitya is a military man, and god dammit I really like military dudes. They’re buff. Dmitri’s recklessness honestly just makes him MORE attractive, and his devotion to Grushenka gives him a sweet side too.

3. Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (Crime and Punishment): ANOTHER CHARACTER DOSTOEVSKY DEDICATED AN ENTIRE PAGE TO. Raskolnikov is fucking beautiful, but he’s as breakable as fucking glass. He’d probably be tied with Stavrogin if only he took better care of himself. Instead, he lets himself starve, constantly faints, and makes terrible decisions every single time he’s given the chance. Not to mention he’s kind of a dick to everyone. He’s good-looking, but his sickliness gets in the way of his attractiveness.

4. Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov): Similar to Raskolnikov. Ivan is hot at the beginning of the novel, but his religious breakdown and descent into madness sends him spiraling, so by the end he just looks sick. 

5. Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky (Demons): Verkhovensky is good-looking, but something about his description holds him back from peak hotness. Probably his “pinched face” (Dostoevsky’s words, not mine). I really like the idea of him having longer hair, like in the TV series (movie? help???) I found his cunning really attractive at the beginning of the book, but by the end he was more psychotic than anything. Not an awesome look.

6. Dmitri Prokofych Razumikhin (Crime and Punishment): Okay hear me out: I always imagined Raz as being kinda scruffy and disheveled. Couple that with the fact that he’s canonically tall, and you got yourself a hottie. He’s also so incredibly sweet but also very passionate, making him the ideal partner. Too bad he’s in love with the Raskolnikovs (take your pick of which sibling).

7. Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov): Alyosha is a major cutie, but he's not exactly hot. He’s described as being tall and good-looking, but his chaste nature holds him back from his true potential. DON’T GET ME WRONG ALYOSHA IS THE SWEETEST CHARACTER HE IS MY BABY AND I LOVE HIM but I wouldn’t fuck him.

8. Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin (The Idiot): Myshkin is a fucking angel. He’s a beautiful ray of sunshine and the light of my life, but like Alyosha, he’s too pure to really be hot. Also, I always imagined him as looking thin and sickly due to his epilepsy, being kind of perpetually sick, which detracts from his looks.

9. Gavrila Ardalionovich Ivolgin (The Idiot): I see Ganya as reasonably attractive, but god he’s such a dick. If only he was nicer. Still, he takes care of himself, which is more than I can say for others on this list.

10. Evgeny Pavlovich Radomsky (The Idiot): A polite, smart, handsome friend. Unfortunately, he’s kinda boring, which makes him forgettable to me.

11. Parfyon Semyonovich Rogozhin (The Idiot): A dark, roguish lad. His passion is really what puts him up here, but I never saw him as particularly hot. The fact that he kills his girlfriend and tries to kill his best friend isn’t helping his case. Bonus points for having distinctive eyes though, even if you can’t escape his gaze.

12. Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin (Crime and Punishment): Luzhin is a dilf (minus being a dad) until he opens his mouth. Then he speaks and becomes the biggest dick in the book (which is saying something, because Svidrigailov is also in this book). 

13. Alexei Nilych Kirillov (Demons): I have no real thoughts on Kirillov. He’s of average looks, I guess. A bit too edgy for my taste. I also see him as being pretty disheveled and not really taking care of himself in his depressive state, but unlike Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov, Kirillov doesn’t have anyone to take care of him.

14. Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov (Crime and Punishment): I love to hate this guy. I see him as being reasonably attractive for his age (which goes with his canon description), but he’s such a fucking creep that he will never be truly hot. Unfortunately, he’s a pedophile/rapist, which would automatically put him at the bottom of the list if this list wasn’t based on physical appearance alone.

15. Porfiry Petrovich (Crime and Punishment): A man of average looks. I see him as being a bit paunchy and looking a little older than his age, but his cunning and sense of humor make him more attractive (he’d be near the top if this list was based on personality).

16. Ivan Pavlovich Shatov (Demons): Not particularly good-looking, but made better by the fact that he can see how ludicrous Verkhovensky’s plan is.

17. The Underground Man (Notes From Underground): A complete fucking wreck. Would look better if he was maybe a little less of a wreck.

18. Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov): Disgusting old man.

19. Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov (The Brothers Karamazov): get this thing away from me this instant

[7r0773r]

Demons by Fyodor Dostoevsky, translated by Richard Pevear & Larissa Volokhonsky

Abroad, Shatov had radically changed some of his former socialist convictions and leaped to the opposite extreme. He was one of those ideal Russian beings who can suddenly be so struck by some strong idea that it seems to crush them then and there, sometimes even forever. They are never strong enough to master it, but they are passionate believers, and so their whole life afterwards is spent in some last writhings, as it were, under the stone that has fallen on them and already half crushed them. (p. 30)

***

“Each man cannot judge except by himself,” [Kirillov] said, blushing. “There will be entire freedom when it makes no difference whether one lives or does not live. That is the goal to everything.”

“The goal? But then perhaps no one will even want to live?”

“No one,” he said resolutely.

“Man is afraid of death because he loves life, that’s how I understand it,” I observed, “and that is what nature tells us.”

“That is base, that is the whole deceit!” his eyes began to flash. “Life is pain, life is fear, and man is unhappy. Now all is pain and fear. That’s how they’ve made it. Life now is given in exchange for pain and fear, and that is the whole deceit. Man now is not yet the right man. There will be a new man, happy and proud. He for whom it will make no difference whether he lives or does not live, he will be the new man. He who overcomes pain and fear will himself be God. And this God will not be.”

“So this God exists, in your opinion?”

“He doesn’t, yet he does. There is no pain in the stone, but there is pain in the fear of the stone. God is the pain of the fear of death. He who overcomes pain and fear will himself become God. Then there will be a new life, a new man, everything new . . . Then history will be divided into two parts: from the gorilla to the destruction of God, and from the destruction of God to . . .”

“To the gorilla?”

“. . . to the physical changing of the earth and man. Man will be God and will change physically. And the world will change, and deeds will change, and thoughts, and all feelings. What do you think, will man then change physically?”

“If it makes no difference whether one lives or does not live, then everyone will kill himself, and perhaps that will be the change.”

“It makes no difference. They will kill the deceit. Whoever wants the main freedom must dare to kill himself. He who dares to kill himself knows the secret of the deceit. There is no further freedom; here is everything; and there is nothing further. He who dares to kill himself, is God. Now anyone can make it so that there will be no God, and there will be no anything. But no one has done it yet, not once.” 

“There have been millions of suicides.”

“But all not for that, all in fear and not for that. Not to kill fear. He who kills himself only to kill fear, will at once become God.”

“He may not have time,” I observed.

“It makes no difference,” he replied softly, with quiet pride, almost with scorn. (pp. 115-16)

***

(Stavrogin) “You seem to be very happy, Kirillov?”

“Yes, very happy,” the latter replied, as if making the most ordinary reply.

“But you were upset still so recently, angry with Liputin?”

“Hm . . . now I’m not scolding. Then I didn’t know I was happy yet. Have you seen a leaf, a leaf from a tree?”

“I have.”

“I saw one recently, a yellow one, with some green, decayed on the edges. Blown about by the wind. When I was ten years old, I’d close my eyes on purpose, in winter, and imagine a leaf--green, bright, with veins, and the sun shining. I’d open my eyes and not believe it, because it was so good, then I’d close them again.”

“What’s that, an allegory?”

“N-no . . . why? Not an allegory, simply a leaf, one leaf. A leaf is good. Everything is good.”

“Everything?”

“Everything. Man is unhappy because he doesn’t know he’s happy; only because of that. It’s everything, everything! Whoever learns will at once immediately become happy, that same moment. This mother-in-law will die, and the girl will remain--everything is good. I discovered suddenly.”

And if someone dies of hunger, or someone offends and dishonors the girl--is that good?”

“Good. And if someone’s head gets smashed in for the child’s sake, that’s good, too; and if it doesn’t get smashed in, that’s good, too. Everything is good, everything. For all those who know that everything is good. If they knew it was good with them, it would be good with them, but as long as they don’t know it’s good with them, it will not be good with them. That’s the whole thought, the whole, there isn’t any more!”

“And when did you find out that you were so happy?”

“Last week, on Tuesday, no, Wednesday, because it was Wednesday by then, in the night.”

“And what was the occasion?”

“I don’t remember, just so; I was pacing the room . . . it makes no difference. I stopped my clock, it was two thirty-seven.”

“As an emblem that time should stop?”

Kirillov did not reply.

“They’re not good,” he suddenly began again, “Because they don’t know they’re good. When they find out, they won’t violate the girl. They must find out that they’re good, then they’ll all become good at once, all, to a man.” 

“Well, you did find out, so you must be good?”

“I am good.”

“With that I agree, incidentally,” Stavrogin muttered frowningly.

“He who teaches that all are good, will end the world.”

“He who taught it was crucified.”

“He will come, and his name is the man-god.”

The God-man?”

“The man-god--that’s the whole difference.” (pp. 237-38)

***

(Shatov) “. . . The aim of all movements of nations, of every nation and in every period of its existence, is solely the seeking for God, its own God, entirely its own, and faith in him as the only true one. God is the synthetic person of the whole nation, taken from its beginning and to its end. It has never yet happened that all or many nations have had one common God, but each has always had a separate one. It is a sign of a nation’s extinction when there begin to be gods in common. When there are gods in common, they die along with the belief in them and with the nations themselves. The stronger the nation, the more particular its God. There has never yet been a nation without a religion, that is, without an idea of evil and good. Every nation has its own idea of evil and good, and its own evil and good. When many nations start having common ideas of evil and good, then the nations die out and the very distinction between evil and good begins to fade and disappear. Reason has never been able to define evil and good, or even to separate evil from good, if only approximately; on the contrary, it has always confused them, shamefully and pitifully; and science has offered the solution of the fist. Half-science has been especially distinguished for that--the most terrible scourge of mankind, worse than plague, hunger, or war, unknown till our century. Half-science is a despot such as has never been seen before. A despot with its own priests and slaves, a despot before whom everything has bowed down with a love and superstition unthinkable till now, before whom even science itself trembles and whom it shamefully caters to.” (pp. 250-51)

***

(Shatov to Stavrogin) “You’re an atheist because you’re a squire, an ultimate squire. You’ve lost the distinction between evil and good because you’ve ceased to recognize your own nation. A new generation is coming, straight from the nation’s heart, and you won’t recognize it, neither will the Verkhovenskys, son or father, nor will I, for I, too, am a squire--I, the son of your serf and lackey Pashka . . . Listen, acquire God by labor; the whole essence is there, or else you’ll disappear like vile mildew; do it by labor.”

“God by labor? What labor?”

“Peasant labor. Go, leave your wealth . . . Ah! you’re laughing, you’re afraid it will turn out to be flimflam.”

But Stavrogin was not laughing. (pp. 255-56)

***

(Stavrogin) “You seem to be very offended with them, Marya Timofeevna?”

“Who, me? No,” she smiled simpleheartedly. “Not a bit. I looked at you all then: you’re all angry, you’re all quarreling; you get together and can’t even laugh from the heart. So much wealth and so little joy--it’s all loathsome to me. . . “ (p. 274)

***

“[Shigalyov’s] got it all down nicely in his notebook,” Verkhovensky continued. “He’s got spying. He’s got each member of society watching the others and  obliged to inform. Each belongs to all, and all to each. They’re all slaves and equal in their slavery. Slander and murder in extreme cases, but above all--equality. First, the level of education, science, and talents is lowered. A high level of science and talents is accessible only to higher abilities--no need for higher abilities! Higher abilities have always seized power and become despots. Higher abilities cannot fail to be despots and have always corrupted rather than been of use; they are to be banished or executed. Cicero’s tongue is cut off, Copernicus’s eyes are put out, Shakespeare is stoned--this is Shigalyovism! Slaves must be equal: there has never yet been either freedom or quality without despotism, but within a herd there must be equality, and this is Shigalyovism! Ha, ha, ha, so you find it strange? I’m for Shigalyovism!” (p. 417)

***

(Pyotr Stepanovich) “ . . . I’m a crook, really, not a socialist, ha, ha! Listen, I’ve counted them all up: the teacher who laughs with children at their God and at their cradle, is already ours. The lawyer who defends an educated murderer by saying that he’s more developed than his victims and couldn’t help killing to get money, is already ours. Schoolboys who kill a peasant just to see how it feels, are ours. Jurors who acquit criminals right and left, are ours. The prosecutor who trembles in court for fear of being insufficiently liberal, is ours, ours. Administrators, writers--oh, a lot of them, an awful lot of them are ours, and they don’t know it themselves! On the other hand, the docility of schoolboys and little fools has reached the highest point; their mentors all have burst gallbladders; everywhere there is vanity in immeasurable measure, appetites beastly, unheard-of . . . Do you know, do you know how much we can achieve with little ready-made ideas alone? When I left, Littré’s thesis that crime is insanity was raging; I come back--crime is no longer insanity but precisely common sense itself, almost a duty, at any rate a noble protest: ‘But how can a developed murderer not murder, if he needs money!’ And this is just the fruit. The Russian God has already folded in the face of ‘rotgut.’ The people are drunk, mothers are drunk, children are drunk, the churches are empty, and in the courts it’s ‘two hundred strokes, or fetch us a pot.’ Oh, just let this generation grow up! Only it’s a pity there’s no time to wait, otherwise they could get themselves even drunker! Ah, what a pity there are no proletarians! But there will be, there will be, we’re getting there. . .” (p. 420)

***

I have already hinted at the fact that various trashy sorts of people had appeared among us. Always and everywhere, in a troubled time of hesitation or transition, various trashy sorts appear. I am not speaking of the so-called “vanguard,” who always rush ahead of everyone else (their chief concern) and whose goal, though very often quite stupid, is still more or less definite. No, I am speaking only of scum. This scum, which exists in every society, rises to the surface in any transitional time, and not only has no goal, but has not even the inkling of an idea, and itself merely expresses anxiety and impatience with all its might. And yet this scum, without knowing it, almost always falls under the command of that small group of the “vanguard” which acts with a definite goal, and which directs all this rabble wherever it pleases, provided it does not consist of perfect idiots itself--which, incidentally, also happens. (pp. 461-62)

***

(Stepan Trofimovich) “. . . I do not wish you much happiness--it would bore you; I do not wish you trouble either; but, following the people’s philosophy, I will simply repeat: ‘Live more’ and try somehow not to be too bored. . .” (p. 491)

***

(Kirillov) “. . . God is necessary, and therefore must exist.”

(Pyotr Stepanovich) “Well, that’s wonderful.”

“But I know that he does not and cannot exist.”

“That’s more like it.”

“Don’t you understand that a man with these two thoughts cannot go on living?” (p. 615)

***

(Kirillov) “. . . If there is no God, then I am God.”

(Pyotr Stepanovich) “Now, there’s the one point of yours that I could never understand: why are you God then?”

“If there is God, then the will is all his, and I cannot get out of his will. If not, the will is all mine, and it is my duty to proclaim self-will.”

“Self-will? And why is it your duty?”

“Because the will has all become mine. Can it be that no one on the whole planet, having ended God and believed in self-will, dares to proclaim self-will to the fullest point? It’s as if a poor man received an inheritance, got scared, and doesn’t dare go near the bag, thinking he’s too weak to own it. I want to proclaim self-will. I may be the only one, but I’ll do it.”

“Do it, then.”

“It is my duty to shoot myself because the fullest point of my self-will is--for me to kill myself.” (p. 617)

***

“. . . Listen,” Kirillov stopped, gazing before him with fixed, ecstatic eyes. “Listen to a big idea: There was one day on earth, and in the middle of the earth stood three crosses. One on a cross believed so much that he said to another: ‘This day you will be with me in paradise.’ The day ended, they both died, went, and did not find either paradise or resurrection. What had been said would not prove true. Listen: this man was highest on all the earth, he constituted what it was to live for. Without this man the whole planet with everything on it is--madness only. There has not been one like Him before or since, not ever, even to the point of miracle. This is the miracle, that there has not been and never will be such a one. And if so, if the laws of nature did not pity even This One, did not pity even their own miracle, but made Him, too, live amidst a lie and die for a lie, then the whole planet is a lie, and stands upon a lie and a stupid mockery. Then the very laws of the planet are a lie and a devil’s vaudeville. Why live then, answer me, if you’re a man.” (p. 618)

***

(Stepan Trofimovich) “. . . I’ve been lying all my life. Even when I was telling the truth. I never spoke for the truth, but only for myself, I knew that before, but only now do I see . . .” (p. 652)

***

(Stepan Trofimovich) “. . . And now a thought has occurred to me; une comparaison. Terribly many thoughts occur to me now; you see, it’s exactly like our Russia. These demons who come out of a sick man and enter into swine--it’s all the sores, all the miasmas, all the uncleanness, all the big and little demons accumulated in our great and dear sick man, in our Russia, for centuries, for centuries! Oui, cette Russie que j’aimais toujours. But a great will and a great thought will descend to her from on high, as upon that insane demoniac, and out will come all these demons, all the uncleanness, all the abomination that is festering on the surface . . . and they will beg of themselves to enter into swine. And perhaps they already have! It is us, us and them, and Petrusha . . . et les autres avec lui, and I, perhaps, first, at the head, and we will rush, insane and raging, from the cliff down into the sea, and all be drowned, and good riddance to us, because that’s the most we’re fit for. But the sick man will be healed and ‘sit at the feet of Jesus’ . . . and everyone will look in amazement . . .” (p. 655)

***

(Stepan Trofimovich) “My immortality is necessary if only because God will not want to do an injustice and utterly extinguish the fire of love for him once kindled in my heart. And what is more precious than love? Love is higher than being, love is the crown of being, and is it possible for being not to bow before it? If I have come to love him and rejoice in my love--is it possible that he should extinguish both me and my joy and turn us to naught? If there is God, then I am immortal! Voilá ma profession de foi.” (p. 663)

***

“On the contrary, total atheism is more respectable than worldly indifference,” [Tikhon] added, gaily and ingenuously.

“Oho, so that’s how you are.”

“A complete atheist stands on the next-to-last upper step to the most complete faith (he may or may not take that step), while the indifferent one has no faith, apart from a bad fear.” (p. 688)

[beolh]

marya timofeevna queen of my heart i love u i love u i love u i

[tinytimism]

i love her so much

[tinytimism]

i got 99 problems and ivan and marya interacting more could’ve solved all of them

[tinytimism]

i have done it again gang