Scan barcode
A review by notwellread
The Double by Fyodor Dostoevsky
4.0
I may be biased towards this because of my love for the film (which I would highly recommend no matter what people think of the original book – they’re completely different anyway). I certainly enjoyed reading this, but it’s not a devastatingly brilliant, life-changing masterpiece like the film is.
I am tentative to say this, but I found the main character and the descriptions of social awkwardness and embarrassment very relatable (with the exception of his self-importance, and obviously I wasn’t exactly nodding along with the rather misogynistic rant near the end), and I was surprised how closely it related to my own feelings and experiences at times (), which makes me wonder if Dostoevsky himself had ever felt the same, although I might be overthinking it. To me, this was definitely the best aspect of the novella, and (though I obviously liked it a lot) I think a reader’s opinion of it might live and die on whether you enjoy this aspect (since this is what the vast majority of the content concerns, and even the doppelganger aspect is not as major as the awkward moments, and it’s mostly psychologically based and not particularly exciting plot-wise).
The writing was generally good, but very rambling, which I enjoyed nonetheless (though it didn’t make for a very gripping read, exactly) but I can see how it would bother some people. I don’t have much experience with Dostoevsky yet, but I don’t think this is his typical style, so fans of his might be a bit bemused by it. The characters weren’t very complexly portrayed, but it seems like one of those books where that isn’t really the point (or, at least, not the priority), and the protagonist, although he obviously is characterized a lot, doesn’t really learn from his experiences (and spirals into madness instead of growing and learning), so although I found it easy to connect with this aspect (which a lot of people obviously look for in a book) wasn’t really there, but I would again say that it’s a ‘different kind’ of book from the typical storyline with the typical aims in the author’s mind.
N.B. My translation was by Ronald Wilks, and I thought it was very straight-forward but at the same time came across as very fluent and eloquently written, so I would recommend it (I can’t comment on its relationship with the Russian though, because I don’t know the language at all). I had a look at the Penguin translation from Notes from Underground and the Double in a bookshop and it didn’t like it as much (although I do tend to think the first thing I see (or in this case, read) is the best, so others might disagree.
The ending was a bit odd to me – I felt like I understood the psychological / philosophical sides to the novella pretty well until this point stumped me and I was left a bit confused.
As a last comment, I would say that since its rating isn’t very high (and it seems like other Dosto books are rated significantly higher), this may be one of those books that I like but no one else does, which I suppose I can accept.
I am tentative to say this, but I found the main character and the descriptions of social awkwardness and embarrassment very relatable (with the exception of his self-importance, and obviously I wasn’t exactly nodding along with the rather misogynistic rant near the end), and I was surprised how closely it related to my own feelings and experiences at times (
Spoiler
particularly how his doppelgänger wipes his hand off after touching Golyadkin - I wanted to cry knowing I wasn't the only one who's had this happen!The writing was generally good, but very rambling, which I enjoyed nonetheless (though it didn’t make for a very gripping read, exactly) but I can see how it would bother some people. I don’t have much experience with Dostoevsky yet, but I don’t think this is his typical style, so fans of his might be a bit bemused by it. The characters weren’t very complexly portrayed, but it seems like one of those books where that isn’t really the point (or, at least, not the priority), and the protagonist, although he obviously is characterized a lot, doesn’t really learn from his experiences (and spirals into madness instead of growing and learning), so although I found it easy to connect with this aspect (which a lot of people obviously look for in a book) wasn’t really there, but I would again say that it’s a ‘different kind’ of book from the typical storyline with the typical aims in the author’s mind.
N.B. My translation was by Ronald Wilks, and I thought it was very straight-forward but at the same time came across as very fluent and eloquently written, so I would recommend it (I can’t comment on its relationship with the Russian though, because I don’t know the language at all). I had a look at the Penguin translation from Notes from Underground and the Double in a bookshop and it didn’t like it as much (although I do tend to think the first thing I see (or in this case, read) is the best, so others might disagree.
The ending was a bit odd to me – I felt like I understood the psychological / philosophical sides to the novella pretty well until this point stumped me and I was left a bit confused.
Spoiler
It’s funny, because people often seem to express confusion at the end of the film, but I felt like I ‘got’ the film’s ending and found this more difficult to understand. I know he’s dragged off to an asylum, and I felt very sorry for him (regardless of whether we were meant to or not), but I didn’t really understand the psychiatrist speaking in a strange accent at the end, since he didn’t have an accent at the beginning. Is this supposed to be part of the protagonist’s madness, and if so, why is he perceiving his speech this way?As a last comment, I would say that since its rating isn’t very high (and it seems like other Dosto books are rated significantly higher), this may be one of those books that I like but no one else does, which I suppose I can accept.