The Double: A Petersburg Poem

By Fyodor Dostoevsky

"The Double" centres on a government clerk who goes mad. It deals with the internal psychological struggle of its main character, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, who repeatedly encounters someone who is his exact double in appearance but confident, aggressive, and extroverted, characteristics that are the polar opposites to those of the toadying "pushover" protagonist. The motif of the novella is a 'doppelgänger', known throughout the world in various guises such as the fetch.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Otbebookpublishing
• Release date: Dec 27, 2015
• ISBN: 9783956762826

Fyodor Dostoevsky

Fyodor Dostoyevsky was born in Moscow in 1821. He died in 1881 having written some of the most celebrated works in the history of literature, including Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov.

Book preview

The Double: A Petersburg Poem

by

Fyodor Dostoevsky

Translated by

Constance Garnett

Chapter I

It was a little before eight o'clock in the morning when Yakov Petrovitch Golyadkin, a titular councillor, woke up from a long sleep. He yawned, stretched, and at last opened his eyes completely. For two minutes, however, he lay in his bed without moving, as though he were not yet quite certain whether he were awake or still asleep, whether all that was going on around him were real and actual, or the continuation of his confused dreams. Very soon, however, Mr. Golyadkin's senses began more clearly and more distinctly to receive their habitual and everyday impressions. The dirty green, smoke-begrimed, dusty walls of his little room, with the mahogany chest of drawers and chairs, the table painted red, the sofa covered with American leather of a reddish colour with little green flowers on it, and the clothes taken off in haste overnight and flung in a crumpled heap on the sofa, looked at him familiarly. At last the damp autumn day, muggy and dirty, peeped into the room through the dingy window pane with such a hostile, sour grimace that Mr. Golyadkin could not possibly doubt that he was not in the land of Nod, but in the city of Petersburg, in his own flat on the fourth storey of a huge block of buildings in Shestilavotchny Street. When he had made this important discovery Mr. Golyadkin nervously closed his eyes, as though regretting his dream and wanting to go back to it for a moment. But a minute later he leapt out of bed at one bound, probably all at once, grasping the idea about which his scattered and wandering thoughts had been revolving. From his bed he ran straight to a little round looking-glass that stood on his chest of drawers. Though the sleepy, short-sighted countenance and rather bald head reflected in the looking-glass were of such an insignificant type that at first sight they would certainly not have attracted particular attention in any one, yet the owner of the countenance was satisfied with all that he saw in the looking-glass. What a thing it would be, said Mr. Golyadkin in an undertone, what a thing it would be if I were not up to the mark today, if something were amiss, if some intrusive pimple had made its appearance, or anything else unpleasant had happened; so far, however, there's nothing wrong, so far everything's all right.

Greatly relieved that everything was all right, Mr Golyadkin put the looking-glass back in its place and, although he had nothing on his feet and was still in the attire in which he was accustomed to go to bed, he ran to the little window and with great interest began looking for something in the courtyard, upon which the windows of his flat looked out. Apparently what he was looking for in the yard quite satisfied him too; his face beamed with a self-satisfied smile. Then, after first peeping, however, behind the partition into his valet Petrushka's little room and making sure that Petrushka was not there, he went on tiptoe to the table, opened the drawer in it and, fumbling in the furthest corner of it, he took from under old yellow papers and all sorts of rubbish a shabby green pocket-book, opened it cautiously, and with care and relish peeped into the furthest and most hidden fold of it. Probably the roll of green, grey, blue, red and particoloured notes looked at Golyadkin, too, with approval: with a radiant face he laid the open pocket-book before him and rubber his hands vigorously in token of the greatest satisfaction. Finally, he took it out - his comforting roll of notes - and, for the hundredth time since the previous day, counted them over, carefully smoothing out every note between his forefinger and his thumb.

Seven hundred and fifty roubles in notes, he concluded at last, in a half-whisper. Seven hundred and fifty roubles, a noteworthy sum! It's an agreeable sum, he went on, in a voice weak and trembling with gratification, as he pinched the roll with his fingers and smiled significantly; it's a very agreeable sum! A sum agreeable to any one! I should like to see the man to whom that would be a trivial sum! There's no knowing what a man might not do with a sum like that. . . . What's the meaning of it, though? thought Mr. Golyadkin; where's Petrushka? And still in the same attire he peeped behind the partition again. Again there was no sign of Petrushka; and the samovar standing on the floor was beside itself, fuming and raging in solitude, threatening every minute to boil over, hissing and lisping in its mysterious language, to Mr. Golyadkin something like, Take me, good people, I'm boiling and perfectly ready.

Damn the fellow, thought Mr. Golyadkin. That lazy brute might really drive a man out of all patience; where's he dawdling now?

In just indignation he went out into the hall, which consisted of a little corridor at the end of which was a door into the entry, and saw his servant surrounded by a good-sized group of lackeys of all sorts, a mixed rabble from outside as well as from the flats of the house. Petrushka was telling something, the others were listening. Apparently the subject of the conversation, or the conversation itself, did not please Mr. Golyadkin. He promptly called Petrushka and returned to his room, displeased and even upset. That beast would sell a man for a halfpenny, and his master before any one, he thought to himself: and he has sold me, he certainly has. I bet he has sold me for a farthing. Well?

They've brought the livery, sir.

Put it on, and come here.

When he had put on his livery, Petrushka, with a stupid smile on his face, went in to his master. His costume was incredibly strange. He had on a much-worn green livery, with frayed gold braid on it, apparently made for a man a yard taller than Petrushka. In his hand he had a hat trimmed with the same gold braid and with a feather in it, and at his hip hung a footman's sword in a leather sheath. Finally, to complete the picture, Petrushka, who always liked to be in neglig‚, was barefooted. Mr. Golyadkin looked at Petrushka from all sides and was apparently satisfied. The livery had evidently been hired for some solemn occasion. It might be observed, too, that during his master's inspection Petrushka watched him with strange expectance and with marked curiosity followed every movement he made, which extremely embarrassed Mr. Golyadkin.

Well, and how about the carriage?

The carriage is here too.

For the whole day?

For the whole day. Twenty five roubles.

And have the boots been sent?

Yes.

Dolt! can't even say, 'yes, sir.' Bring them here.

Expressing his satisfaction that the boots fitted, Mr. Golyadkin asked for his tea, and for water to wash and shave. He shaved with great care and washed as scrupulously, hurriedly sipped his tea and proceeded to the principal final process of attiring himself: he put on an almost new pair of trousers; then a shirtfront with brass studs, and a very bright and agreeably flowered waistcoat; about his neck he tied a gay, particoloured cravat, and finally drew on his coat, which was also newish and carefully brushed. As he dressed, he more than once looked lovingly at his boots, lifted up first one leg and then the other, admired their shape, kept muttering something to himself, and from time to time made expressive grimaces. Mr. Golyadkin was, however, extremely absent-minded that morning, for he scarcely noticed the little smiles and grimaces made at his expanse by Petrushka, who was helping him dress. At last, having arranged everything properly and having finished dressing, Mr. Golyadkin put his pocket-book in his pocket, took a final admiring look at Petrushka, who had put on his boots and was therefore also quite ready, and, noticing that everything was done and that there was nothing left to wait for, he ran hurriedly and fussily out on to the stairs, with a slight throbbing at his heart. the light-blue hired carriage with a crest on it rolled noisily up to the steps. Petrushka, winking to the driver and some of the gaping crowd, helped his master into the carriage; and hardly able to suppress an idiotic laugh, shouted in an unnatural voice: Off! jumped up on the footboard, and the whole turnout, clattering and rumbling noisily, rolled into the Nevsky Prospect. As soon as the light-blue carriage dashed out of the gate, Mr. Golyadkin rubbed his hands convulsively and went off into a slow, noiseless chuckle, like a jubilant man who has succeeded in bringing off a splendid performance and is as pleased as Punch with the performance himself. Immediately after his access of gaiety, however, laughter was replaced by a strange and anxious expression on the face of Mr. Golyadkin. Though the weather was damp and muggy, he let down both windows of the carriage and began carefully scrutinizing the passers-by to left and to right, at once assuming a decorous and sedate air when he thought any one was looking at him. At the turning from Liteyny Street into the Nevsky Prospect he was startled by a most unpleasant sensation and, frowning like some poor wretch whose corn has been accidentally trodden on, he huddled with almost panic-stricken hast into the darkest corner of his carriage.

He had seen two of his colleagues, two young clerks serving in the same government department. The young clerks were also, it seemed to Mr. Golyadkin, extremely amazed at meeting their colleague in such a way; one of them, in fact, pointed him out to the other. Mr. Golyadkin even fancied that the other had actually called his name, which, of course, was very unseemly in the street. Our hero concealed himself and did not respond. The silly youngsters! he began reflecting to himself. Why, what is there strange in it? A man in a carriage, a man needs to be in a carriage, and so he hires a carriage. They're simply noodles! I know them - simply silly youngsters, who still need thrashing! They want to be paid a salary for playing pitch-farthing and dawdling about, that's all they're fit for. It'd let them all know, if only . . .

Mr. Golyadkin broke off suddenly, petrified. A smart pair of Kazan horses, very familiar to Mr. Golyadkin, in a fashionable droshky, drove rapidly by on the right side of his carriage. The gentleman sitting in the droshky, happening to catch a glimpse of Mr. Golyadkin, who was rather incautiously poking his head out of the carriage window, also appeared to be extremely astonished at the unexpected meeting and, bending out as far as he could, looked with the greatest of curiosity and interest into the corner of the carriage in which our hero made haste to conceal himself. The gentleman in the droshky was Andrey Filippovitch, the head of the office in which Mr. Golyadkin served in the capacity of assistant to the chief clerk. Mr. Golyadkin, seeing that Andrey Filippovitch recognized him, that he was looking at him open-eyed and that it was impossible to hide, blushed up to her ears.

Bow or not? Call back or not? Recognize him or not? our hero wondered in indescribable anguish, or pretend that I am not myself, but somebody else strikingly like me, and look as though nothing were the matter. Simply not I, not I - and that's all, said Mr. Golyadkin, taking off his hat to Andrey Filippovitch and keeping his eyes fixed upon him. I'm . . . I'm all right, he whispered with an effort; I'm . . . quite all right. It's not I, it's not I - and that is the fact of the matter.

Soon, however, the droshky passed the carriage, and the magnetism of his chief's eyes was at an end. Yet he went on blushing, smiling and muttering something to himself. . .

I was a fool not to call back, he thought at last. I ought to have taken a bolder line and behaved with gentlemanly openness. I ought to have said 'This is how it is, Andrey Filippovitch, I'm asked to the dinner too,' and that's all it is!

Then, suddenly recalling how taken aback he had been, our hero flushed as hot as fire, frowned, and cast a terrible defiant glance at the front corner of the carriage, a glance calculated to reduce all his foes to ashes. At last, he was suddenly inspired to pull the cord attached to the driver's elbow, and stopped the carriage, telling him to drive back to Liteyny Street. The fact was, it was urgently necessary for Mr. Golyadkin, probably for the sake of his own peace of mind, to say something very interesting to his doctor, Krestyan Ivanovitch. And, though he had made Krestyan Ivanovitch's acquaintance quite recently, having, indeed, only paid him a single visit, and that one the previous week, to consult him about some symptom. but a doctor, as they say, is like a priest, and it would be stupid for him to keep out of sight, and, indeed, it was his duty to know his patients. Will it be all right, though, our hero went on, getting out of the carriage at the door of a five-storey house in Liteyny Street, at which he had told the driver to stop the carriage: Will it be all right? Will it be proper? Will it be appropriate? After all, though, he went on, thinking as he mounted the stairs out of breath and trying to suppress that beating of his heart, which had the habit of beating on all other people's staircases: After all, it's on my own business and there's nothing reprehensible in it. . . . It would be stupid to keep out of sight. Why, of course, I shall behave as though I were quite all right, and have simply looked in as I passed. . . . He will see, that it's all just as it should be.

Reasoning like this, Mr. Golyadkin mounted to the second storey and stopped before flat number five, on which there was a handsome brass door-plate with the inscription -

KRESTYAN IVANOVITCH RUTENSPITZ

Doctor of Medicine and Surgery

Stopping at the door, our hero made haste to assume an air of propriety, ease, and even of a certain affability, and prepared to pull the bell. As he was about to do so he promptly and rather appropriately reflected that it might be better to come to-morrow, and that it was not very pressing for the moment. But as he suddenly heard footsteps on the stairs, he immediately changed his mind again and at once rang Krestyan Ivanovitch's bell - with an air, moreover, of great determination.

Chapter II

The doctor of medicine and surgery, Krestyan Ivanovitch Rutenspitz, a very hale though elderly man, with thick eyebrows and whiskers that were beginning to turn grey, eyes with an expressive gleam in them that looked capable of routing every disease, and, lastly, with orders of some distinction on his breast, was sitting in his consulting-room that morning in his comfortable armchair. He was drinking coffee, which his wife had brought him with her own hand, smoking a cigar and from time to time writing prescriptions for his patients. After prescribing a draught for an old man who was suffering from haemorrhoids and seeing the aged patient out by the side door, Krestyan Ivanovitch sat down to await the next visitor.

Mr. Golyadkin walked in.

Apparently Krestyan Ivanovitch did not in the least expect nor desire to see Mr. Golyadkin, for he was suddenly taken aback for a moment, and his countenance unconsciously assumed a strange and, one may almost say, a displeased expression. As Mr. Golyadkin almost always turned up inappropriately and was thrown into confusion whenever he approached any one about his own little affairs, on this occasion, too, he was desperately embarrassed. Having neglected to get ready his first sentence, which was invariably a stumbling-block for him on such occasions, he muttered something - apparently an apology - and, not knowing what to do next, took a chair and sat down, but, realizing that he had sat down without being asked to do so, he was immediately conscious of his lapse, and made haste to efface his offence against etiquette and good breeding by promptly getting up again from the seat he had taken uninvited. Then, on second thoughts, dimly perceiving that he had committed two stupid blunders at once, he immediately decided to commit a third - that is, tried to right himself, muttered something, smiled, blushed, was overcome with embarrassment, sank into expressive silence, and finally sat down for good and did not get up again. Only, to protect himself from all contingencies, he looked at the doctor with that defiant glare which had an extraordinary power of figuratively crushing Mr. Golyadkin's enemies and reducing them to ashes. This glance, moreover, expressed to the full Mr. Golyadkin's independence - that is, to speak plainly, the fat that Mr. Golyadkin was all right, that he was quite himself, like everybody else, and that there was nothing wrong in his upper storey. Krestyan Ivanovitch coughed, cleared his throat, apparently in token of approval and assent to all this, and bent an inquisitorial interrogative gaze upon his visitor.

I have come to trouble you a second time, Krestyan Ivanovitch, began Mr. Golyadkin, with a smile, and now I venture to ask your indulgence a second time. . . . He was obviously at a loss for words.

H'm . . . Yes! pronounced Krestyan Ivanovitch, puffing out a spiral of smoke and putting down his cigar on the table, but you must follow the treatment prescribed to you; I explained to you that what would be beneficial to your health is a change of habits. . . . Entertainment, for instance, and, well, friends - you should visit your acquaintances, and not be hostile to the bottle; and likewise keep cheerful company.

Mr. Golyadkin, still smiling, hastened to observe that he thought he was like every one else, that he lived by himself, that he had entertainments like every one else . . . that, of course, he might go to the theatre, for he had the means like every one else, that he spent the day at the office and the evenings at home, that he was quite all right; he even observed, in passing, that

Reviews for The Double

[margaretfield · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

fantastic; only book I ever got to the last chapter; then read the whole thing through again before reading the last chapter.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Dit was het eerste werk van Dostojevski dat ik las, op 16 jaar. Was er meteen weg van! Heb daarna bijna zijn hele oeuvre verslonden.

[maxernst11 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Dit was het eerste werk van Dostojevski dat ik las, op 16 jaar. Was er meteen weg van! Heb daarna bijna zijn hele oeuvre verslonden.

[elliepotten · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I picked this up from the library because the new Richard Ayoade-directed Eisenberg-and-Wasikowska movie was coming out and IT LOOKED SO TRIPPILY AWESOME. The book, on the other hand (my first Dostoyevsky, no less) was... well, definitely trippy. Not that awesome, sadly. It's chaotic and fractured and although I did enjoy it, and felt very sorry for poor Golyadkin as he slowly went mad, by the end it had become so disjointed and hard to connect with him at all that I was glad to have finished it. It was only 137 pages, but it took me a long time to read because it was - purposely, admittedly - so choppy. The adaptation, incidentally, worked better for me, but I think I'm still going to need a second viewing to get my head round it!

[missizicks · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Poor Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin. I, too, long had a presentiment of his fate. What a cracking read. Dostoevsky was a master at getting across the feverish hell of madness. I couldn't not read, even though the events that befall Mr Golyadkin at the hands of his double made me uncomfortable in a similar way to Curb Your Enthusiasm. Horrific, exasperating and sad, all at the same time.

[laurensx · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Having read and enjoyed "Crime and Punishment" years ago, I really looked forward to reading "The Double". I found, reading this book was akin to walking through sludge in a pair of bedroom slippers.Dostoevsky introduces the reader to Yakov Petrovitch Golyadkin, an office worker living in Moscow. Not only are we introduced to him, but embark on an often frustrating and confusing journey through Golyadkin's mind, as he's psychologically falling apart. This mental collapse resulted in this reader feeling trapped a "maze-like" story, where twists and turns left me confused, having to reread sentences and even backing up to reread pages to see where I had become confused (and never finding the source of confusion). Dostoevsky was skillful in his manner of writing, as I can only infer, what the mind of a person who is losing theirs, endures. As I read, I felt physically bound to Golyadkin, as if tethered to him This further resulted in feeling even more constricted, confined, frustrated and confused. I don't know if Dostoevsky intended for the reader to experience such emotion and physical connection, however, it was my experience and found it brilliant, although hating it at the same time.Adding to this frustration was the constant repetition of the names. Nevermind Russian is difficult to roll off this American reader's tongue, was it really necessary to repeat names over and over, and to have to say first, middle and last each time? Perhaps this is typical of Russian dialogue during this time period, however, it added to the chaotic nature of the story.I could never determine whether "the double" was an actual person, or one drawn in Golyadkin's mind. Although other characters seemed to interact with "Junior", was it because he was real or was it Golyadkin's perception of the situation? Could this uncertainty be another of Dostoevsky's crafts, further enhancing the chaotic state of Golyadkin's mind? Whatever the case, I found it frustrating to not know, but ok with not knowing, as it fit with the story.I cannot say I enjoyed this book, as it was difficult and not comfortable or relaxing, which is why I read. It was, however, skillful and emotional, also why I read. As a book, it fulfilled its duty to escort me to another world and time, taking me on a journey I otherwise would not have experienced. In that sense, "The Double" was a worthy read.Score: 3

[edwinbcn · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The double by Fyodor Dostoevsky was not an easy book to read. I was "lucky" in the sense that my edition (Great short works of Dostoyevsky) did not have an extensive introduction. However, as a trained philologist, one does not come entirely free from preconceptions to a literary work like this, and these preconceptions do make things easier, at least not while reading.The story is that of a clerk, whose life is "invaded" by a persona, virtually his double. Especially in the beginning, the introduction of this double is so masterly, that I experienced a loss of orientation, and switch of perspective, which made me uncertain whether I was "seeing" through the eyes of the "original" Golyadkin (later dubbed "senior") or the double (later dubbed "junior").The intrusive Golyadkin junior is perceived by senior as a threat to his position and his existence. Various scenes are played out at the office, in which junior is supposedly trying to replace senior, superseding senior by outstanding performance or making senior look bad in the eyes of his (their) superiors.Towards the end of this short novel, the reader presented with a logical resolution, namely that Golyadkin has all along been suffering from delusions, and experienced a mental breakdown. The final page superbly reminds us of Philip Roth's Portnoy's complaint.However, another way of reading is possible. Last year, I read Notes from the underground in which a destitute character refers to himself as an insignificant "insect", a total nobody, as opposed to a "hero". The image of the insect made me think of Kafka's Die Verwandlung. While a mental breakdown, and schizophrenic delusion is the most rational explanation for Golyadkin's behaviour, it would still be possible to interpret his visions subjectively, as an externalised threat. For quite a while, reading The double I felt that Golyadkin senior projected his own image on a new employee, an new clerk at the office, equally insignificant as himself. Many of Golyadkin's fears and frantic behaviour to prove himself worthy, or true, could be explained if he felt threatened in his existence by a newcomer who would try to take his place, or possible even oust him. This type of situation is not uncommon in the work place, and as a phenomenon it may have been novel in the mid-nineteenth century.A difficult read with a lot to think about, I will probably need to reread it some other time.

[wktarin · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Exhausting and bathotic.

[kateclark_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is my first foray into the world of Dostoevsky, and appropriate as it so differs from his later period of writing (after hard labour). While I accept this work as a psychological study, it seems to me this book has many other levels to it also. This is a 'fantastic' novella. The fantastic 'is that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event' (Todorov, 1975). It is through this genre that the unexplained supernatural is never explained, and left to the reader to decipher, which is most often impossible. It lies between the marvelous and the uncanny. This novella is a clear example of it because of (in my opinion one of the more interesting aspects of the book) the unreliable narrator. I see his as yet another double of the main character, Goliadkin senior, with 'our hero' meaning the narrator's and self's hero. To the reader, we do not see any sense of a real hero. He even begins to adopt Goliadkin's speech patterns towards the end. The narrator is so unreliable that we are never given a real witness to the existence of goliadkin junior, nor is the reader denied that existence. The novella is puzzling, and difficult to decipher at times. Though he was hailed as a new critical voice in the realist veign, this novella proved dostoevskii could not be so easily pigeon-holed, and displayed his true genius. The first half reads a bit slowly, but the second half flies by (after the supernatural begins). I highly recommend this book as a light introduction to Dostoevskii.

[antao-3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

(Original Review, 1981-03-23)About how to interpret or read a text. And I am going to use 'he' as my generic pronoun because Hammett was a he.One perfectly valid way is indeed to try to stick as closely as possible to exactly what is in the text and maybe some biographic info, at least a rough knowledge of the time and space of the action, and whatever is known of the author's intentions. In some measure we MUST do thaFor the writers intentions there is a theory of the intentional fallacy: the text says what it says not what the author says it says. For example an author may think he is writing a strong female character when writing about Stella, stunningly beautiful, highly competent executive assistant to self-made billionaire Brad. In fact Stella is a male fantasy. Even the best writers can 'mean' the unintended. For example in Milton's Paradise Lost, Milton unintentionally made Satan into quite a compelling, sublimely majestic figure who made God look like a mean spirited despot. And indeed Milton's Satan evolved into a positive, if flawed, hero type, although subsequent writers were often more comfortable with the figure of Prometheus whose story in Aeschylus' Prometheus Unbound is less tainted by associations with the negativity of Satan's Christian Antichrist image.Writers have lived biographies, lived through their specific times. Just like non-writers. But writers ARE writers. Literature is a vast and mighty river of the expression of being human. No writer of any worth, however innovative or creative, just creates a brand new world of Literature. What a writer reads is to a writer very similar in concept to the very times he lives through. He is living through the Literature he has read just as he has lived through the times. Of course real life may be more powerfully impressed on him such as the death of a loved one, or fighting in a war. But his reading is an important part of his life experience of his very being in the world.So if Hammet created a character which reminds one of a series of other characters going back centuries it is perfectly legitimate to discuss it in terms of Literature just as it would be to discuss the political environment of the times. Literature is fundamentally intertextual. Texts refer as much to each other as to the world. Positively and negatively. Literature is the very psychic life blood of a writer. It is an indelible inextricable part of his biography.Hammett I take to have a brilliant literary mind and to be well read in Literature. I take him to be able to know what a Byronic Hero is, what others thought about that, to have his own thoughts about it, as well as lots of other things (like about detective stories), of course. And I take him to have an idea of what a parable is and how it differs from a story, or what an archetype or double is. Take the 'double': all he has to do is READ Poe's William Wilson, or Dostoevsky’s “The Double” to get what it is as Literature. Or to read Hamlet to know how a “mise en abyme” works. He knows these things and uses them WITH THE MIND OF A BRILLIANT WRITER. A mind that processes literature not as a critic or simple reader, but as a creator of it.So if he fails to say IN the text, "Sam Spade, flawed Byronic Hero, was sitting in his office", that does not mean that Sam Spade is not a Byronic Hero type. If he creates a parable or “mise en abyme” he need not tell us that is what he is doing, nor is it particularly virtuous of us to ignore it because it isn't explicit, to ignore that he is a writer and that is the kind of thing writers do.Is Sam Spade such a figure? Maybe, maybe not. But we can look at his character and compare it to others in Literature. But just because DH doesn't say so, doesn't mean we are reading into it what is not there. Yes it is implicit, but that is about the only way it could be there. Byron too did not say: "Manfred, a Promethean archetype, was brooding on a dark and lonely crag." You have to read it INTO the text yourself. Maybe I am wrong to think DH could have written deeply conflicting archetypal characters like Brigid and Sam who are yet deeply attracted. But I think it is both possible and likely. But it is ONLY interpretation. He didn't SAY, "Into the office strolled Sam's counter archetype, Brigid".It can sound like a stretch but great literature does that all the time. What you have to do is see if there are clues in the text. Because DH DID say Sam looked like a Satan. He did create a strange and powerful emotional entanglement between Brigid and Sam and she is a corrupt devil type (Christian) and he a Satanic man of his own will (Miltonian). And so on. Did he? Maybe it isn't as impressive as I think it is, but that IS the kind of things great writers do, so why not Hammett? But I think the Sam Brigid 'love' story is sublimely brilliantly conceived and written, BECAUSE of that. Does it HAVE to just be an extremely well written noir detective novel? Not for me.At this time, you’re thinking: “Is this a review about The Double” or about “The Maltese Falcon” or "Paradise Lost"? Ah. That’s always the conundrum… If you’ve been following my reviews, you know I don’t write straightforward stuff. It’s all about Intertextuality and Close Reading for me. Coming back to “The Double” and trying to be more incisive, I really loved it, especially from the point where the doppelganger actually arrives and in the rather brilliant ending. I think that it has a problem though, which is that it's not at all what you might think before you go in, so people might go in thinking it's going to be a straightforward laugh-out-loud comedy and it really isn't and is very unsettling and complex. I would have given it 4 stars, but slightly better than “Under the Skin” for me (controversial) (I was worried at first that it was going to be a bit too "Brazil", but it just nodded and then moved on.)

[danielstj · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

An amazing story about obsession and paranoia. It is a psychological miasma that also reflects heavily upon Russia during the time that Dostoevsky lived in. There is so much great literary value in this. It can be interpreted many different ways, and the subtext of many of the themes that keep reiterating themselves, as if cast down by snow, are innumerable.

A thrilling read. Recommended for those interested in classics.

[tronella_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It was compelling, but I'm not sure I understand what actually happened at the end...

[gbill_7 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The Double was Dostoevsky’s second book, published in 1846, in the period of his life before being sentenced to hard labor for having been involved in the Petrashevsky circle. He had already been recognized by the important critic Belinsky for his first book, Poor Folk, but was yet to emerge from the ten-year period of penal servitude and exile in Siberia as the man who would crank out the works that he is most known for over the years 1866-1880. Sadly for Dostoevsky, The Double was criticized for being dull and long-winded, which severely hurt the sensitive young author. Happily for us, he took the criticism to heart, and twenty years later, at the height of his powers, significantly revised it. The result is outstanding. The first five chapters are stunning, and one wonders wow, where will he go with this? And it’s captivating to the last page.The Double is about the socially awkward clerk Golyadkin, self-described as “a man apart”, who is surprised on a snowy bridge one night to find his double. This double is a sort of alter ego, and it quickly becomes apparent that he is everything Golyadkin is not. He is perfect in society, acts with grace and elegance, and is the complete opposite of Golyadkin, quickly succeeding in the office and in society where Golyadkin had been frustrated. Golyadkin becomes confused, disoriented, further isolated, and backed into a corner as his standing is further reduced on all fronts, including with his servant. He reacts alternately with indecision and angst, followed by impulse and somewhat random behavior. We empathize with him but he’s artless and clumsy, constantly second guessing himself, and is never at ease. He continues to fight what seems to be a battle he can’t win, at one point feeling too “annihilated, shrunken, impotent” to go on. He becomes increasingly shunned as he tries to right wrongs that his double is perpetrating. The book is a study on several levels, and in the most obvious sense shows the struggle between the awkward, isolated individual and society with its schemers. In another sense it could be viewed as all internal, a spiritual struggle with one’s own self to keep hold of one’s principles and core identity intact. The description of events is dreamlike at times and one wonders if it’s possibly a long nightmare, or perhaps better put, allegory for the nightmare of existence, or a descent into madness. It also works straight up as an eerie, creepy tale.One can clearly see young Dostoevsky in the main character, one who was not like everyone else, those who were smooth, deft, and wore their society masks well. Golyadkin is innocent and wants to trust others, and yet is deceived, scorned, and judged at each turn. The novel is existential and well ahead of its time, prefetching Kafka. Along those lines it was interesting to me that at one point Golyadkin says that next to a tall and handsome fellow at a ball, he feels like a “real little insect”. Even the narrator feels inadequate (“Oh, if I were a poet! It goes without saying, at least such a one as Homer or Pushkin; with a lesser talent you can’t poke your nose in…”) and is also an outsider, capable of empathy and true understanding of darkness and isolation only (“It goes without saying that my pen is too weak, limp and blunt for a respectable depiction of the ball…”). And one can picture Dostoevsky looking on with a mixture of disgust and envy those who, like the double, fit into the category of being “a mischievous one, a frisky one, a crawly one, a chuckling one, fleet of tongue and foot”, and who “worm their way” through crowds and society.Great stuff, and underrated. This edition also contained 23 pages of excellent “extra material” at the end, covering Dostoevsky’s life and his works in separate sections, which I never tire of reading. Just this quote, on winter in St. Petersburg, which is described later as the “final proof of fate’s persecution” against Golyadkin:“It was an awful November night – wet, misty, rainy, snowy, pregnant with gumboils, head colds, cold sores, sore throats, fevers of all possible types and kinds – in short, with all the gifts of November in St. Petersburg. The wind howled in the deserted streets, raising the black water of the Fontanka higher than the mooring rings and plucking provocatively at the scrawny streetlights of the embankment which, in their turn, echoed its howling with the thin, piercing creaking which composed the endless, squeaking, tinkling concert so familiar to every resident of St. Petersburg. It was raining and snowing all at once. Streams of rainwater with the wind ripping through them were gushing all but horizontally, as if from a fire hose, and pricked and whipped the face of the unfortunate Mr. Golyadkin like thousands of pins and needles.”