You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.51 AVERAGE
3.51 AVERAGE
dark
funny
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I love doppelgänger fiction and this has quite an intriguing storyline, but the writing feels a little too repetitive and rambling and generally unsure of itself to rank alongside Dostoevsky's best work.
You can definitely tell that this is his earlier work; an interesting concept but lack of skill to deliver it in an adequate way, review to come.
3,5*
Dostoevskij già a 25 anni conosceva l'animo umano così profondamente da saperne scrivere in modo completo. Questo racconto può essere considerato un microcosmo di tutto quello che svilupperà in seguito nei suoi libri più lunghi, in modo più approfondito. La condizione umile, la colpa, il ridicolo insito nel poveraccio che punta in alto...troppo.
Mi chiedo se Palahniuk si sia ispirato a questo racconto per il suo Fight Club.
Dostoevskij già a 25 anni conosceva l'animo umano così profondamente da saperne scrivere in modo completo. Questo racconto può essere considerato un microcosmo di tutto quello che svilupperà in seguito nei suoi libri più lunghi, in modo più approfondito. La condizione umile, la colpa, il ridicolo insito nel poveraccio che punta in alto...troppo.
Mi chiedo se Palahniuk si sia ispirato a questo racconto per il suo Fight Club.
dark
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
reflective
tense
medium-paced
kinda dragged a bit... liked the characters and descriptions but ending left much to be desired personally
"He felt himself so constricted; all those eyes directed towards him were oppressing him and crushing him" p.156
The first in my self-imposed 'Year of Dostoevsky', 'The Double' was an interesting ride, and other than including (as the name aptly suggests) the doppelgänger motif I had no idea what to expect.
As is typical of a doppelgänger story, 'The Double' is an uncanny tale exploring madness. Unlike something like E.T.A Hoffmann's 'Der Sandmann' in which the source of the protagonist's madness is internal, in 'The Double,' Dostoevsky explores madness that comes from an external source: society.
Protagonist Golyadkin (coming from a Russian word for 'beggar') is a middle class, middle-aged man who from the beginning of the narrative we can see has not only an immense amount of awareness of the intricacies of social interactions but also an immense fear of getting them wrong, and his self-consciousness makes him incredibly nervous when talking to other people. He overthinks, stumbles over his words, he sweats, he fidgets. And in the end, he is often quite incapable of making himself understood.
Indeed, one of the only things he's able to say in a straightforward way is how he is "not skilled in speaking in fine words" (p.11)
His introversion is set up early on in the novel as directly at odds with what is expected of him. His doctor goes so far as to say: "you need to make a radical transformation of your whole life [...] Not to shun a cheerful life; go to shows and a club and in any event not to be afraid of having a drink. Staying at home won't do... you can't possibly stay at home." (p.11)
This notion that not wanting to be social is a defect rather than just a preference is one that still exists today, nearly 180 years later. I remember seeing a post on some social media platform or other in which the writer pointed out how introverts are often encouraged to 'push' themselves to go out, to be a part of a group, but extraverts are rarely, if ever, encouraged to 'push' themselves to stay in, to be on their own.
This bias towards sociability and the stigma towards introversion, Dostoevsky argues, creates in those that are naturally shyer an anxiety that makes engaging with others all the worse. Now the shy person not only has to do something they don't want to do and that likely doesn't come naturally, they have to do so competently and with enthusiasm they don't feel. And if they get it wrong, or are simply unwilling to expend the emotional labor/energy, they face being ridiculed or ostracized.
Golyadkin is clearly already suffering from this anxiety when we first meet him, and we see how that anxiety snowballs into full-blown paranoia. His central concern is over whether or not his colleagues and immediate superiors would use his unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to wear the social masks that they do as an excuse to plot against him and oust him from the relatively comfortable place he's managed to procure for himself in the social hierarchy of the office.
This paranoia culminates in him gate-crashing a party hosted by someone he hopes to impress. His worst fears are confirmed when he not only finds himself absolutely unwelcome, but lacks the charisma and social graces to laugh it off. Instead, he (most likely) suffers a nervous breakdown from which he never recovers, his psychosis increasing over the remainder of the novel until neither he nor the reader knows which way is up.
This is where the doppelgänger comes in.
In a very telling description shortly after Golyadkin meets his double, Dostoevsky writes: "The man who was now sitting opposite Mr. Golyadkin was Mr. Golyadkin's horror, he was Mr. Golyadkin's shame, he was Mr. Golyadkin's nightmare [...] in short, he was Mr. Golyadkin himself." (p.52)
But this self-awareness doesn't last for long, as instead of remaining a reflection of what Mr. Golyadkin views as his own failures, the doppelgänger succeeds in every way that he himself 'failed.' His doppelgänger is liked by everyone at the office, is affable, is articulate. And this enrages the original, who spends much of the rest of the story trying to expose the double as 'fake,' but to no avail.
With a fairly heavy hand, Dostoevsky tells us that, at least in this case (but is it just this case?), only the 'fake' Golyadkin would ever be accepted and acceptable. That he could never truly thrive without putting on the mask he was so proud never to wear (unlike his colleagues, or at least, so he suspects).
I'm not a particularly shy person, existing somewhat in the middle of the introvert/extravert binary, and have never suffered from the extreme social anxiety Mr. Golyadkin experiences, but I know and have known many people who do, including my partner. I could see them wincing in empathy or seeing something of themselves reflected in it, but I don't think this is a book from which an introvert would learn anything new about themselves.
Extraverts, though, if reading in good faith, would quite possibly come away with a newfound sympathy and understanding for just how tall of an order it really is to force someone who doesn't want to into a social situation, and indeed, it could be quite traumatic for that person given the suffocation of the relatively strict rules of engagement an extravert would take for granted.
This is one of Dostoevsky's quite early pieces, and that definitely shows in some of the over-writing, but despite this, his brilliant decision to construct social norms as something uncanny, and the toe-dipping into stream of consciousness to great unsettling effect bodes well for his evolution as an author, and I look forward to seeing him hone his craft as I continue on my little journey through his works.
The first in my self-imposed 'Year of Dostoevsky', 'The Double' was an interesting ride, and other than including (as the name aptly suggests) the doppelgänger motif I had no idea what to expect.
As is typical of a doppelgänger story, 'The Double' is an uncanny tale exploring madness. Unlike something like E.T.A Hoffmann's 'Der Sandmann' in which the source of the protagonist's madness is internal, in 'The Double,' Dostoevsky explores madness that comes from an external source: society.
Protagonist Golyadkin (coming from a Russian word for 'beggar') is a middle class, middle-aged man who from the beginning of the narrative we can see has not only an immense amount of awareness of the intricacies of social interactions but also an immense fear of getting them wrong, and his self-consciousness makes him incredibly nervous when talking to other people. He overthinks, stumbles over his words, he sweats, he fidgets. And in the end, he is often quite incapable of making himself understood.
Indeed, one of the only things he's able to say in a straightforward way is how he is "not skilled in speaking in fine words" (p.11)
His introversion is set up early on in the novel as directly at odds with what is expected of him. His doctor goes so far as to say: "you need to make a radical transformation of your whole life [...] Not to shun a cheerful life; go to shows and a club and in any event not to be afraid of having a drink. Staying at home won't do... you can't possibly stay at home." (p.11)
This notion that not wanting to be social is a defect rather than just a preference is one that still exists today, nearly 180 years later. I remember seeing a post on some social media platform or other in which the writer pointed out how introverts are often encouraged to 'push' themselves to go out, to be a part of a group, but extraverts are rarely, if ever, encouraged to 'push' themselves to stay in, to be on their own.
This bias towards sociability and the stigma towards introversion, Dostoevsky argues, creates in those that are naturally shyer an anxiety that makes engaging with others all the worse. Now the shy person not only has to do something they don't want to do and that likely doesn't come naturally, they have to do so competently and with enthusiasm they don't feel. And if they get it wrong, or are simply unwilling to expend the emotional labor/energy, they face being ridiculed or ostracized.
Golyadkin is clearly already suffering from this anxiety when we first meet him, and we see how that anxiety snowballs into full-blown paranoia. His central concern is over whether or not his colleagues and immediate superiors would use his unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to wear the social masks that they do as an excuse to plot against him and oust him from the relatively comfortable place he's managed to procure for himself in the social hierarchy of the office.
This paranoia culminates in him gate-crashing a party hosted by someone he hopes to impress. His worst fears are confirmed when he not only finds himself absolutely unwelcome, but lacks the charisma and social graces to laugh it off. Instead, he (most likely) suffers a nervous breakdown from which he never recovers, his psychosis increasing over the remainder of the novel until neither he nor the reader knows which way is up.
This is where the doppelgänger comes in.
In a very telling description shortly after Golyadkin meets his double, Dostoevsky writes: "The man who was now sitting opposite Mr. Golyadkin was Mr. Golyadkin's horror, he was Mr. Golyadkin's shame, he was Mr. Golyadkin's nightmare [...] in short, he was Mr. Golyadkin himself." (p.52)
But this self-awareness doesn't last for long, as instead of remaining a reflection of what Mr. Golyadkin views as his own failures, the doppelgänger succeeds in every way that he himself 'failed.' His doppelgänger is liked by everyone at the office, is affable, is articulate. And this enrages the original, who spends much of the rest of the story trying to expose the double as 'fake,' but to no avail.
Straight away, at once, in a single moment, with his appearance alone, Golyadkin junior ruined all the triumph and all the glory of Mr. Golyadkin senior, himself eclipsed Golyadkin senior, trampled Golyadkin senior into the dirt [...] And this was all done so quickly that Mr. Golyadkin senior did not even have time to open his mouth before everybody devoted themselves body and soul to the disgraceful and fake Mr. Golyadkin and with the deepest contempt rejected him, the genuine and innocent Mr. Golyadkin." p.103
With a fairly heavy hand, Dostoevsky tells us that, at least in this case (but is it just this case?), only the 'fake' Golyadkin would ever be accepted and acceptable. That he could never truly thrive without putting on the mask he was so proud never to wear (unlike his colleagues, or at least, so he suspects).
I'm not a particularly shy person, existing somewhat in the middle of the introvert/extravert binary, and have never suffered from the extreme social anxiety Mr. Golyadkin experiences, but I know and have known many people who do, including my partner. I could see them wincing in empathy or seeing something of themselves reflected in it, but I don't think this is a book from which an introvert would learn anything new about themselves.
Extraverts, though, if reading in good faith, would quite possibly come away with a newfound sympathy and understanding for just how tall of an order it really is to force someone who doesn't want to into a social situation, and indeed, it could be quite traumatic for that person given the suffocation of the relatively strict rules of engagement an extravert would take for granted.
This is one of Dostoevsky's quite early pieces, and that definitely shows in some of the over-writing, but despite this, his brilliant decision to construct social norms as something uncanny, and the toe-dipping into stream of consciousness to great unsettling effect bodes well for his evolution as an author, and I look forward to seeing him hone his craft as I continue on my little journey through his works.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
funny
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The Double is an absurd story. We're constantly reassured by our hero, Mr. Golyadkin, that there's nothing special about the situation though. He reassures himself of this consistently, even though it's driving him mad. Or is it? That's the real question of the novel.
The story is told from the perspective of Mr. Golyadkin, though not a first person narration. We're often directly in the head of Mr. Golyadkin, and even before the introduction of his double, Mr. Golyadkin junior, his thoughts are frantic, disorganized, and often broken. This only becomes more apparent after he meets his double.
He only meets Mr Golyadkin junior after, in would seem, all his problems come to a head. He's flatly refused entrance to a party for a girl he has romantic interests with, and so he sneaks in the back and crashes the ball. Of course, he's kicked out, and the shame of this instance seems to be enough to cause a nervous breakdown. Well, or so it would appear. He makes constant mention of certain enemies and a rumor about a previous engagement.
His paranoia is indicative of a mental illness, but it's also possible there really are enemies out to destroy his reputation--two-faced people, hell-bent on removing him from their society. It's the pressure of that society that causes his nervous breakdown, and it's his decision to "play the game," as they say, that causes an identity crisis. His double is the side of him he doesn't want to be, but the side he must let loose if he's to survive his enemies attacks and thrive in their society. At first they're on amicable terms, but his double soon becomes malevolent, conspiring to remove him and replace him entirely.
That's only one theory, of course.
And even with all these psychological elements in play, Dostoyevsky still makes the story darkly hilarious. With all the comedy of a panic attack and all the discomfort of your most embarrassing moment, it might not be for everyone, however. Especially so, when you consider that the style makes the story somewhat convoluted. It reads a lot like a fever dream. Still, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in mental illnesses, existential crises, or the doppelganger motif.
The story is told from the perspective of Mr. Golyadkin, though not a first person narration. We're often directly in the head of Mr. Golyadkin, and even before the introduction of his double, Mr. Golyadkin junior, his thoughts are frantic, disorganized, and often broken. This only becomes more apparent after he meets his double.
He only meets Mr Golyadkin junior after, in would seem, all his problems come to a head. He's flatly refused entrance to a party for a girl he has romantic interests with, and so he sneaks in the back and crashes the ball. Of course, he's kicked out, and the shame of this instance seems to be enough to cause a nervous breakdown. Well, or so it would appear. He makes constant mention of certain enemies and a rumor about a previous engagement.
His paranoia is indicative of a mental illness, but it's also possible there really are enemies out to destroy his reputation--two-faced people, hell-bent on removing him from their society. It's the pressure of that society that causes his nervous breakdown, and it's his decision to "play the game," as they say, that causes an identity crisis. His double is the side of him he doesn't want to be, but the side he must let loose if he's to survive his enemies attacks and thrive in their society. At first they're on amicable terms, but his double soon becomes malevolent, conspiring to remove him and replace him entirely.
That's only one theory, of course.
And even with all these psychological elements in play, Dostoyevsky still makes the story darkly hilarious. With all the comedy of a panic attack and all the discomfort of your most embarrassing moment, it might not be for everyone, however. Especially so, when you consider that the style makes the story somewhat convoluted. It reads a lot like a fever dream. Still, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in mental illnesses, existential crises, or the doppelganger motif.