Scan barcode
loyaultemelie's review
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
Probably Dostoevsky at his most lighthearted, this is a difficult story to rate. Part of probably comes from having already read the Pickwick Papers - which Dostoevsky appeared to pull from in the climax of the story. Dostoevsky riffing Dickens is strange, in a way that is both enjoyable and vaguely uncomfortable. I can't decide if everything landed as he wanted to, though I certainly understood where humor was being evoked.
It's also interesting that the humor comes from the inaction of all the characters, their weakness and inability to stand up for themselves. This strikes me as distinctly Russian, and again I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it. It's funny, but frustrating. Which I suspect is the point. I will say, the horror at the servants being taught French was very funny.
This review is a bit all over the place because my thoughts on the book are. I read this when in a reading slump, which probably didn't afford it any favors. I'm sure I'll reread it again someday, and hopefully cement my thoughts.
It's also interesting that the humor comes from the inaction of all the characters, their weakness and inability to stand up for themselves. This strikes me as distinctly Russian, and again I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it. It's funny, but frustrating. Which I suspect is the point. I will say, the horror at the servants being taught French was very funny.
This review is a bit all over the place because my thoughts on the book are. I read this when in a reading slump, which probably didn't afford it any favors. I'm sure I'll reread it again someday, and hopefully cement my thoughts.
millennial_dandy's review against another edition
4.0
Imagine the most craven and insignificant of social outcasts, utterly useless to man or beast, utterly vile, but inordinately vain, and without a single personal virtue to justify his cankered vanity." (p.33)
Dostoevsky's second attempt at novelized social satire and comedy, 'The Village of Stepanchikovo' could easily be described as Dickensian in its wit and the characterization of its principle villain, Foma Fomich Opiskin. Indeed, in the introduction, translator Ignat Avsey notes that Opiskin could be considered the 'spiritual progeny' of Uriah Heap and Mr. Pecksniff (p.14).
In other words, if you like Dickens, you'll enjoy this novel. If you do not like Dickens, this may not by the Dostoevsky for you. I'd also throw Shakespeare into the mix as being someone similar in terms of the type of comedy this is and the characters that play it out.
Also in the introduction, Avsey also quotes Dostoevsky as claiming to have had the characters of Opiskin and the story's protagonist, Colonel Rostanev, in mind for five years before actually completing the project. This is quite believable to anyone who has read 'Uncle's Dream,' which, though in a lot of ways completely different from 'Stepanchikovo' could be considered the first attempt at this genre (and, I'd argue, much less successful).
As seems to have been simply de rigueur in the 19th century novel, the story is loaded with at least three too many characters who exist only to populate the world and serve no narrative purpose whatsoever. Alas.
The characters that actually matter fall neatly into two categories: straight man or funny man. All of the straight men, including the narrator, are honestly pretty interchangeable, and with the exception of our virtuous love interest, Nastenka, they each take their turn as the butt of the joke, or watching on in horror as someone else is. Though that being said, in a moment of self-awareness, the narrator, Sergey, comments: "It's as if all the freaks of the neighborhood have conspired to meet here,' I thought to myself, not suspecting that by coming among them myself, I only added to their number." (p.85)
And make no mistake: he's right: every funny man in Stepanchikovo is a freak, and the king of them all is the man of the hour: Foma Fomich Opiskin.
My god, what a great villain.
We're a good third of the way into the novel before we actually meet him, but his presence looms over everything. He's despised and feared by everyone, and is built up to be at once menacing and pathetic to such a degree that by the time we do meet him you're at the edge of your seat like 'I've got to meet this guy; I've got to see if this is for real or if everyone's just exaggerating.' But no, no, he's exactly what you want: he's this hilarious, deeply campy, 90s Disney-villain-esque little man who by sheer force of malevolent will has this entire estate in a stranglehold.
After being ground under the boot of the estate's previous master, Foma Fomich realized that the first one to cry wins and just...ran with it, completely bulldozing over the new head of household, who is the most mild-mannered, easily manipulated person ever, and gaslighting him into believing that he, Foma, is the biggest victim and martyr there ever has been. Mad 'woe is me' energy.
But then on the flip side, now that everyone is scared to death of accidentally insulting him, Foma gives himself license to mercilessly insult and humiliate not only Rostanev, but also anyone else he pleases under the guise of trying to help them recognize their own overinflated egos (though his is by far the biggest) and help them achieve spiritual purity. Or, to put a finer point on it: "A base nature subjected to tyranny will always tyrannize others as soon as it has secured its own release." (p.35)
And it's just...it really works; every scene with him in it is incredibly funny. No matter what outrageous thing he says or does, he always manages to get away with it, and all this with increasing absurdity that leaves the narrator increasingly incredulous.
Clearly, part of the satire is the trap of social propriety that leaves everyone at Foma's mercy: it would be simply boorish to kick Foma out or condemn him publicly, and so he trundles along, allowed to get away with fashioning himself at once as a tragic hero, ground under the wheels of fate and doomed to serving under his spiritual and intellectual inferiors, and as this king of the castle who is owed the finest of everything (all on the grounds of contrition from his wrongdoers, of course).
Like, seriously, he'll just say the most out of pocket things constantly. For instance, at one point (one of many points really) there's a gathering of some local so-and-sos, and when Rostanev, the actual head of household and owner of the estate, tries to participate in the conversation being ruled over by Foma, Foma says this:
"Colonel," [Foma] said, "may I ask you -- with all due respect, of course -- to let us finish our discussion in peace and not interrupt. You have nothing to contribute to our discussion, nothing! So please do not disturb our agreeable literary discussion. Go about your own business, drink tea, but... leave literature alone. It'll be to it's advantage entirely, I can assure you." (p.112)
In developing both Foma and Rostanev, Dostoevsky says he wanted to present two "wholly Russian" characters, characters, he claimed, had until then been "poorly represented" in Russian literature. (p.18) For the uninitiated, it's probable that he's referring here to the concept of 'загадочная русская душа' (mysterious Russian soul) coined by another author, Gogol, in conjunction with Gogol's famous novel 'Dead Souls.' What does that mean, you might ask. Well, as per Dostoevsky: "the most basic, most rudimentary spiritual need of the Russian people is the need for suffering, ever-present and unquenchable, everywhere and in everything." (Russian Talk: Culture and Conversation during Perestroika)
If you subscribe to the philosophy that says comedy and tragedy are intertwined (laughter through tears, if you will) then things begin to make sense.
Foma presents himself as the picture of eternal suffering, but he ostensibly isn't; he is the spreader of misery and suffering, particularly to Rostanev, who, only in defending the honor of someone else, is able to attempt standing up to him, though he is ultimately outfoxed. In the end, the idea is that Rostanev, who, though meek and a bit stupid, is a good person needs Foma around -- he can't actually get rid of the thorn in his side; it's a part of himself somehow. And Dostoevsky doesn't pretend there isn't absurdity to that: Sergey (the narrator) tries many times to get his uncle to kick Foma out, or at the very least rebuke him. But Rostanev cannot, and there is where the comedy and tragedy intersect.
It's not all doom and gloom, though. For once, Dostoevsky did something interesting with his quintessential saintly, beautiful-but-she-doesn't-know-it girlie. She doesn't get paired up with the person you'd expect, much less in the fashion you'd expect, and he lets her get in a few zingers, principally against Sergey, who thinks he's coming to Stepanchikovo to marry her.
There's a bit more small-town intrigue involving marriage plots and other behind the scenes shenanigans, but the thing you’re really going to remember about this novel is Foma.
I had a great time in Stepanchikovo, and though there was nothing especially groundbreaking about the satirical elements, and yeah, ok, some of the scenes of everyone sitting around talking in the salon were a bit repetitive, it was a fun romp with a criminally underrated mad-lad, drama queen villain at the center of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't really fit anywhere else, but I felt like adding in just one more instance of the brand of theatricality Foma brings to the table:
"Oh where is my innocence?" Foma rejoined, as though in feverish delirium. [...] And, spreading out his arms, Foma turned to each person in turn as though his innocence were hidden in somebody's pocket." (p.215)
Dostoevsky's second attempt at novelized social satire and comedy, 'The Village of Stepanchikovo' could easily be described as Dickensian in its wit and the characterization of its principle villain, Foma Fomich Opiskin. Indeed, in the introduction, translator Ignat Avsey notes that Opiskin could be considered the 'spiritual progeny' of Uriah Heap and Mr. Pecksniff (p.14).
In other words, if you like Dickens, you'll enjoy this novel. If you do not like Dickens, this may not by the Dostoevsky for you. I'd also throw Shakespeare into the mix as being someone similar in terms of the type of comedy this is and the characters that play it out.
Also in the introduction, Avsey also quotes Dostoevsky as claiming to have had the characters of Opiskin and the story's protagonist, Colonel Rostanev, in mind for five years before actually completing the project. This is quite believable to anyone who has read 'Uncle's Dream,' which, though in a lot of ways completely different from 'Stepanchikovo' could be considered the first attempt at this genre (and, I'd argue, much less successful).
As seems to have been simply de rigueur in the 19th century novel, the story is loaded with at least three too many characters who exist only to populate the world and serve no narrative purpose whatsoever. Alas.
The characters that actually matter fall neatly into two categories: straight man or funny man. All of the straight men, including the narrator, are honestly pretty interchangeable, and with the exception of our virtuous love interest, Nastenka, they each take their turn as the butt of the joke, or watching on in horror as someone else is. Though that being said, in a moment of self-awareness, the narrator, Sergey, comments: "It's as if all the freaks of the neighborhood have conspired to meet here,' I thought to myself, not suspecting that by coming among them myself, I only added to their number." (p.85)
And make no mistake: he's right: every funny man in Stepanchikovo is a freak, and the king of them all is the man of the hour: Foma Fomich Opiskin.
My god, what a great villain.
We're a good third of the way into the novel before we actually meet him, but his presence looms over everything. He's despised and feared by everyone, and is built up to be at once menacing and pathetic to such a degree that by the time we do meet him you're at the edge of your seat like 'I've got to meet this guy; I've got to see if this is for real or if everyone's just exaggerating.' But no, no, he's exactly what you want: he's this hilarious, deeply campy, 90s Disney-villain-esque little man who by sheer force of malevolent will has this entire estate in a stranglehold.
After being ground under the boot of the estate's previous master, Foma Fomich realized that the first one to cry wins and just...ran with it, completely bulldozing over the new head of household, who is the most mild-mannered, easily manipulated person ever, and gaslighting him into believing that he, Foma, is the biggest victim and martyr there ever has been. Mad 'woe is me' energy.
But then on the flip side, now that everyone is scared to death of accidentally insulting him, Foma gives himself license to mercilessly insult and humiliate not only Rostanev, but also anyone else he pleases under the guise of trying to help them recognize their own overinflated egos (though his is by far the biggest) and help them achieve spiritual purity. Or, to put a finer point on it: "A base nature subjected to tyranny will always tyrannize others as soon as it has secured its own release." (p.35)
And it's just...it really works; every scene with him in it is incredibly funny. No matter what outrageous thing he says or does, he always manages to get away with it, and all this with increasing absurdity that leaves the narrator increasingly incredulous.
Clearly, part of the satire is the trap of social propriety that leaves everyone at Foma's mercy: it would be simply boorish to kick Foma out or condemn him publicly, and so he trundles along, allowed to get away with fashioning himself at once as a tragic hero, ground under the wheels of fate and doomed to serving under his spiritual and intellectual inferiors, and as this king of the castle who is owed the finest of everything (all on the grounds of contrition from his wrongdoers, of course).
Like, seriously, he'll just say the most out of pocket things constantly. For instance, at one point (one of many points really) there's a gathering of some local so-and-sos, and when Rostanev, the actual head of household and owner of the estate, tries to participate in the conversation being ruled over by Foma, Foma says this:
"Colonel," [Foma] said, "may I ask you -- with all due respect, of course -- to let us finish our discussion in peace and not interrupt. You have nothing to contribute to our discussion, nothing! So please do not disturb our agreeable literary discussion. Go about your own business, drink tea, but... leave literature alone. It'll be to it's advantage entirely, I can assure you." (p.112)
In developing both Foma and Rostanev, Dostoevsky says he wanted to present two "wholly Russian" characters, characters, he claimed, had until then been "poorly represented" in Russian literature. (p.18) For the uninitiated, it's probable that he's referring here to the concept of 'загадочная русская душа' (mysterious Russian soul) coined by another author, Gogol, in conjunction with Gogol's famous novel 'Dead Souls.' What does that mean, you might ask. Well, as per Dostoevsky: "the most basic, most rudimentary spiritual need of the Russian people is the need for suffering, ever-present and unquenchable, everywhere and in everything." (Russian Talk: Culture and Conversation during Perestroika)
If you subscribe to the philosophy that says comedy and tragedy are intertwined (laughter through tears, if you will) then things begin to make sense.
Foma presents himself as the picture of eternal suffering, but he ostensibly isn't; he is the spreader of misery and suffering, particularly to Rostanev, who, only in defending the honor of someone else, is able to attempt standing up to him, though he is ultimately outfoxed. In the end, the idea is that Rostanev, who, though meek and a bit stupid, is a good person needs Foma around -- he can't actually get rid of the thorn in his side; it's a part of himself somehow. And Dostoevsky doesn't pretend there isn't absurdity to that: Sergey (the narrator) tries many times to get his uncle to kick Foma out, or at the very least rebuke him. But Rostanev cannot, and there is where the comedy and tragedy intersect.
It's not all doom and gloom, though. For once, Dostoevsky did something interesting with his quintessential saintly, beautiful-but-she-doesn't-know-it girlie. She doesn't get paired up with the person you'd expect, much less in the fashion you'd expect, and he lets her get in a few zingers, principally against Sergey, who thinks he's coming to Stepanchikovo to marry her.
There's a bit more small-town intrigue involving marriage plots and other behind the scenes shenanigans, but the thing you’re really going to remember about this novel is Foma.
I had a great time in Stepanchikovo, and though there was nothing especially groundbreaking about the satirical elements, and yeah, ok, some of the scenes of everyone sitting around talking in the salon were a bit repetitive, it was a fun romp with a criminally underrated mad-lad, drama queen villain at the center of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't really fit anywhere else, but I felt like adding in just one more instance of the brand of theatricality Foma brings to the table:
"Oh where is my innocence?" Foma rejoined, as though in feverish delirium. [...] And, spreading out his arms, Foma turned to each person in turn as though his innocence were hidden in somebody's pocket." (p.215)
trundle's review
3.5
Another one of Dostoyevsky's early works, and it certainly shows. Ultimately, the novel just doesn't feel fleshed out. It has the makings of what could be a more interesting novel, but it's simply not all there. The plot is, at first, intriguing enough: the main character, Sergey, is summoned to his uncle's estate and is told that he will marry a woman named Nastenka. However, upon arrival, it's clear that a man named Foma Fomich has complete control of what goes on at the estate. He is undeniably the most interesting character, and this is do to his rather complex nature. Yes, it's easy to see that he manipulates everyone around him and thinks himself superior, but why? He doesn't seem to be after money or status, or at least not so on the surface. As the novel progresses, a bit becomes more clear. Nastenka has no intention of marrying Sergey, and it's revealed that her and his uncle are actually in love. As such, Sergey isn't exactly sure why he was brought to the estate. There's also some occasionally intriguing interactions with others who are present at the estate, but it doesn't really amount to much. Ultimately, Fomich gives his blessing to Sergey's uncle and Nastenka so that they can marry. And while this seems like a nice deed, one is left wondering if it's truly a benevolent act or if Fomich is up to something. It's never made clear, which is fine, and one can easily come up with their own interpretation, I just feel there isn't enough there to make it genuinely interesting or thought provoking when all is said and done.
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
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