Do I need a background on philosophy or politics to get Demons?

No, just be sure to make a list with the names of all the characters so you don't forget their names, there's a ton that are important to the plot.

>>9780459
Thank you, anon.

Yes. You need familiarity with Sergey Nechayev, Marx, Chernyshevsky, Svetozar Marković, Nikolai Leskov, Voltaire, Diderot, Goethe, Hegel (and hopefully Kant), Schiller, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Robespierre, Schopenhauer, and Stirner. (either due to allusions within the work, or due to needing to understand the basis behind ideologies presented by characters within the book.) Read Dostoevsky's previous works of: Poor Folk, The Landlady, The Village of Stepanchikovo, Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, and The Idiot. You should also be intimately familar with the history of Russia from 1672-1917, familiar with the gospels and tradition of the eastern church, and Russian folklore. The dynamics between characters and their social positions in Tolstoy's work should be like second nature to you before you read Dostoevsky deconstruct it in Demons. And if you can read it in the original Russian it's leaps and bounds better than any English translation i'm aware of; the German translation by Swetlana Geier is pretty much the only acceptable translation. Constance Garnett makes some scenes very awkward and stilted, but overall she has the best english translation if you must.

>>9780875
I should probably add that German folklore is somewhat enlightening for a particular scene. Fyodor Tyutchev and Vladimir Solovyov should've been included. Read as many manifestos as you can that were written since the February revolution.

>>9780875
Good recommendations, anon. But I think you're being too ideological. While it's true that enjoyment of the novel is predicated on an intimacy with every single one of the thinkers you mention, you neglect that Demons is also an intensely cultural book. OP should join an orthodox church and attend sermons for at least 1 month prior to reading Demons. Can you think of any other quintessentially Russian cultural experiences that OP should enjoy before he can fully appreciate the novel?

>>9780875
The french translation is probably the best one.

>>9780875
How is Stirner relevant?

>>9780875
Also Merezhkovsky and Rozanov. Nobody except them really understood Dostoevsky.

>>9780875
well, monsieur, demons was published the same year that Kapital was translated into Russian for the first time. tho it is true some of marx's political works and journalism had filtered through to the russian marxists, i do not know if Dostoevsky knew of them directly - he was probably more familiar with the narodniki's hodgepodge. yet, there are many "marxist literary theory" interpretations of Dostoevsky, for which one hardly needs to have any understanding of Marx's critique of political economy

>>9781123
Dostoevsky is a prophet. Nothing else.

>>9780930
ah, yes, monsieur, who needs scholarship when one can bend the knee and genuflect from the heart, the truly "Cultural" way to enjoy and digest such a truly Religious Novelist, as Dostoevsky was. this is the purely Non-Ideological way to appreciate his Artistic Genius, monsieur, at the foot of the swaying incense! ah monsieur, i take my top hat off to you!!!!

>>9781128
yes, monsieur, and like all prophets he was a gambler, an alcoholic, and a reader of social degenerate communist scum like KARL MARX!!!!! shame on you.

Mr. Adult's appearance on this forum is good for laughs.

File: 19748540_1766553166706335_3247504454540736347_n.jpg (23KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x359px

>>9781094
>Implying he never isnt

File: U7lB5DI.jpg (44KB, 960x955px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 960x955px

>>9780875

>troll detected

Read the book. It's fantastic. You're reading a novel. This poster is just showing what Dosto references in the book. You won't get everything, and that is ok.

>>9780875
If one were actually familiar with all these names they wouldn't be inquiring into novels.

>>9781094
>how is existentialism relevant to existential literature

>>9782500
>Stirner
>existentialism
wew lad

>>9782483
Indeed. They would be writing them, if they lived in the XIX century.

>>9780875
This.

>>9780459
god so much this

do this for every Dostoevsky book imo
>>9780286
for the politics if you're unaware of russian politics of the time some translations have footnotes galore to explain

>>9780459
this, desu

Russian names are fucking complicated and nearly all the same.

Are the translations from french good? Not only for Demons but for the mainly Dostoyevsky works?

File: Bugs...EasyOnTheCarrots.png (249KB, 248x459px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 248x459px

>>9780875
Dude... easy on the name dropping.

>>9780459
Agree with do this for every dostovesky book

Every fuckign book

>Here are 40 different characters
>All are important to the plot
>Also they have variations to their name that the characters switch between repeatedly
>All the names have a variation like 15 letters long and somehow sound very similar.

No, most allusions to poltics and philosophy not made expressly clear, are explained in Pevear's notes.

>>9780875
>this
literally ignore
just read and enjoy. The more you grow the more you understand.

Yes a background in philosophy or politics is an excellent way to get demons.

>>9790114
>Ignore becoming more informed about the world around you in order to enhance your literary experiences

>>9780875
>Aктyaльный ayтизм

This "Start with the Greeks" sort of mentality is horseshit. I'm assuming this is a troll, though a smart troll.

What you probably should do is read the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation, at least for it's endnotes. (I'm not sure how good endnotes are for other translations but these are pretty good) Reading "What is to be done" by Cherynshevsky could be helpful, but the basic ideas can be read online. It would be good to have some sort of sense of Russian history and society at the time, but really if you read a more digestible Dostoevsky novel (I recommend The Idiot) or have read one of the big Tolstoy books, you should be fine.

>>9790114
Agree with this

You don't need years of nonstop studying before you can enjoy a fuckin book

>>9792541
Wrong.

>>9793860
But anon I enjoyed a book yesterday and didn't study nonstop for years first.