Notes from the Underground & The Gambler

by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jane Kentish (Translator), Malcolm Jones (Introduction)

One of the most profound and disturbing works of nineteenth-century literature, Notes from the Underground is a probing and speculative work, often regarded as a forerunner to the Existentialist movement. The Gambler explores the compulsive nature of gambling, one of Dostoevsky's own vices and a subject he describes with extraordinary acumen and drama. Both works are new translations, specially commissioned for the World's Classics series.

Genres: Fiction, Classics, Russia, Philosophy, Russian Literature, Literature, Novels

284 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1864

About the author

Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский (Russian)

Works, such as the novels Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.

Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons(1872) .

Many literary critics rate him among the greatest authors of world literature and consider multiple books written by him to be highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He is also well regarded as a philosopher and theologian.

(Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) (see also Fiodor Dostoïevski)

Reviews

[Ilana (illi69) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two short novels that together reveal the full range of Dostoyevsky’s writing.

Notes from Underground begins with the disjointed, seemingly deranged pronouncements of a bitter, antisocial man who believes his intellect far surpasses that March 24, 2019 of his peers. He feels compelled to insult and diminish his former classmates, even though they find him risible, and invites himself to a farewell dinner he can’t afford—where he proceeds to make his hostility clear to the guest of honour, overstays his welcome, provokes a duel, and is ultimately dismissed as a drunken fool.

Humiliated, he paces back and forth in front of the group for hours, ignored and ridiculous, and then carries his self-abasement further by degrading himself before a prostitute, briefly imagining he can save her from a life of misery. The entire book is a study in existential despair—an exercise in self-laceration, with moments so grotesquely human they almost become comic. It’s gloomy, yes, but compelling in its rawness. Dostoyevsky captures the pathology of self-consciousness long before Freud gave it language.
4 stars.

The Gambler, by contrast, feels more personal and revealing. Here Dostoyevsky channels his own addiction to gambling through the story of a young aristocrat employed as a tutor by a Russian family vacationing in Germany. The family and especially “the General” are waiting for word that the old, ailing Russian grandmother has died and left them her fortune. The General, drowning in debt and desperate to marry a French beauty, clings to this hope as his only salvation.

But instead of dying conveniently, the old woman arrives at the resort—alive, imperious, and eager to visit the casino. She insists that the young tutor (a gambling addict himself) escort her, and soon she’s hooked, approaching roulette with a ruthless, almost comic single-mindedness. Rather than take her as a cautionary example, the tutor deepens his own obsession, convinced that if he can just win enough money, he’ll win the love and respect of the woman he’s infatuated with.

It’s a darkly ironic portrait of addiction and self-delusion, written with the energy of lived experience.
4.5 stars.

March 24, 2019

⸻

For more of my writing, visit TotallySurreal.com

[Jonathan Terrington · Rating 4 out of 5]

At the end of last year I finally completed another one of my life reading goals. That is to say I finished the classic Crime and Punishment. Having found this masterpiece to be a fascinating piece of literature I decided that I would have to tackle another work of Dostoyevsky's and so when I stumbled upon Notes from the Underground and The Gambler at my library I picked up the volume and began to read.

There is something about the nature of suffering that the classic Russian authors seem to understand better than nearly anyone else. Or perhaps it is that they are more capable of conveying the quintessential ingredients behind suffering. Either way, it appears to me that Dostoyevsky's novels serve as the means by which the psychological connection to suffering and pain can be discussed. In Crime and Punishment the suffering of a man who has murdered another individual is the key point of discussion. However in Notes from the Underground the psychology of a man who suffers in love and in life - a miserable man - is the greater discussion point. And further in The Gambler the addiction compulsion of gambling is shown to the reader.

Dostoyevsky's novels here have far less scope than Crime and Punishment and are in more ways novellas than actual novels. However, they each still are self contained and excellently discuss the dilemmas of the mind in times of strife and anguish. It is for these reasons (as well as a very humorous narrator in Notes from the Underground) that they deserve to be read. It is particularly interesting to note that these books in particular were written while Dostoyevsky was in periods of turmoil himself (such as in times of death and debt). Which all goes to show that the axiom of 'write what you know' is very, very true.

[Maks Minkowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wyborne!

[Tomas Caldon · Rating 4 out of 5]

5 for ‘Underground’ - a great, Great, formidable work in form, text and supra-text - less enamoured by ‘The Gambler’, enjoyable enough, occasionally cutting in its analyses but rarely as striking or revelatory.

[dani · Rating 4 out of 5]

notes from the underground: 4.5 stars

the narrator was completely and ridiculously relatable and his existential crisis was wholeheartedly conducted wonderfully and hilariously. i felt, deep in my bones, everything he felt and said.

the gambler: 4 stars

was entertaining! the narrator was again a bit hilarious throughout his complicated relationship with polina and the development of his growing gambling habit was portrayed exceptionally

[Cheryl]

The more I read this, the more I can identify with the narrator. He's not crazy at all, just too conscious. And, like he mentions in the first couple of pages, it's an illness.

[Eclectic Indulgence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gambler 4/5
Notes from Underground 5/5

[izabella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes from the underground was stellar, read it in like a week and then my spirit got demobilised but I still loved it just bc it could do that to me. I was only cured when I managed to read some Camus that was how good this was. Five stars.
The Gambler however was a different story. It got really slow and boring at some parts and had to be read in big chunks or you wouldn’t want to pick it up again, but when u did pick it up again it was acc pretty good. Found some beautiful romance sections where he hit me and it LITERALLY felt like a kiss. I’d give three stars just bc of the fact it made me put this book down for SIX MONTHS?!?!
Overall four stars :)

[n]

notes from the underground:

i, too, have been mired in the sauce of contradictions and sufferings, underground man.

[Seth Kupchick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm wary to even write about Dostoevsky because he's one of those novelists that gets discussed to gauge one's depth and it's almost like his work has become secondary to his name, at least for my generation, and I don't feel like namedropping on 'goodreads,' just to score some political points. These were the first Dostoevsky novels I read probably because they were shorter than "Crime and Punishment," "The Brothers Karamazov," and "The Idiot," but I'm being harsh on myself, because I think anyone reading Dostoevsky might want to start on these books, because they aren't as daunting, or immutable, as those bigger works, that many people have spent a life defending. The truth is Dostoevsky is a very relatable and comprehensible writer without any of the stylistic impediments of some of the 20th century greats (not Russian) like Joyce, Stein, or Faulkner, and in that way, he really shouldn't be as daunting as he is because these books are a joy to read. I just think Dostoevsky has such a clear potent way of seeping into your consciousness that he's almost like water that finds a crack and just keeps dripping, and I guess that's his greatness as an artist, not his prose style, though I've only read him in translation.

I can't remember much about "The Gambler," excpet that it's a tale of ruin, like many of Dostoevsky's stories, and I think what people don't realize before reading him is that he really writes about very passionate people in a very raw manner that makes complete sense, nor are his protagonists as inscrutable as say the 'Consul' in Lowry's "Under the Volcano," though at root their problems are the same. Usually, they are involved in a ruined love affair that drives them to drink and gambling, or unspeakable thoughts, or both, and this in turn leads them to a search for God. Dostoevsky leaves no stone unturned to highlight the depths of despair and enlightenment his characters much reach before God comes to them, and I guess in that way he epitomizes the idea that only the sinner can rise to the heights of spiritual purity, and that the man who goes to the depths of Hell, will be more able to find God in his most divine state, rather than being a humble servant of God, without any of the passions that drove Dostoevsky's characters mad, and that I could only imagine drove Dostoevsky mad, but he had the objective mind to take his suffering and somehow make it universal, because his narrative ability and dialogue is great. He gives hope to the sinner in all of us, and the madman, because he speaks to us, and then gives hope, rather than a sanctimonious preacher that is completely unrelatable.

[Łukasz Sabat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Na pierwszy rzut oka można nie docenić, ale jest to potężna rzecz

[Sandip · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Dostoyevsky Force Majeure! The sheer shamefulness of life...your heart is rendered for the narrator as he wrestles his inner demons and the 'men of action'. The standard themes of respectable decrepitude, existentialism and bravado are explored in uncomfortable detail. Shorter than other works but he is pitiless in this one, if you know what I'm talking about.

[kinga · Rating 4 out of 5]

notatki z podziemia super jedynie pierwsza czesc byla strasznie meczaca i szkoda ze takie krotkie bo bym z checia poczytala jezzxze co ten typ odpierdalaj
gracza nie skonczylam bo jakos mnie ta historia n urzekla

[marusia ;^) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jesteśmy martwo urodzeni i w dodatku rodzimy się z ojców od dawna już nieżywych – i to nam coraz bardziej dogadza

[Ballin Tortuga]

Przeczytajcie to @wszyscy

[Nishant Mehra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Notes from the underground almost made me tear the pages and throw it somewhere I couldn't possibly have a sense of its existence in my possession ever. The cycle of perplexing thoughts, seeing oneself as a messiah before an act and then completely betraying the plan altogether for some sick or twisted deed instead, notwithstanding the consciousness of the decision, gives insight to that one little hypocrite inside us who wants to seek the glory and be the empitome of justice and all there is to fairness and selflessness but ends up doing what is simple and expected at best. The myopia of the character and how he is different from the rest is gore and true to perception as how people see world around, though quite extremely exaggerated in the novel. This is a dark tunnel, so I would suggest you to enter at your own discretion.

Gambler is your typical Dostoevsky book (like The Idiot), having enough to talk about complicated and sometimes spontaneous relationships, portraying sense of being a Russian in 19th centry as a doomed, complicated and an intriguing yet altogether patriotic character, the lavish lifestyle of a certain characters, and that villian like yet out of the world beautiful lady who is clever enough to be straightforward and get her way out of one of the side as well as main character. But that's just for the story, and believe me, while the elements are somewhat similar, the stroy nonetheless is very interesting and gets into the psychological aspects of gambling in a mix of sublte and not so subtle way. The randomness of gambling, entrapping anyone who shows even slightest of interest, is the premise as expected, but the larger trap is somwhat unanticipated throughout the story. Why does money motivates one to do so? Even if the person doesn't have any use of money in the first place? These kind of subtle questions along with the final trap will be unfolded through this yet another beautiful work by Dostoevsky.

[eggs · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember writing down some notes excitedly whilst reading The Gambler. Although I couldn’t relocate them to also put them down in my review here, I still remember the lightness and the joy in detail The Gambler made me feel. This might also be caused by the heavily muddy road that Notes offers.

To be perfectly honest, upon completing Notes, I wasn’t very sure if I had the nerves to continue with a similar novel. I kinda pushed myself through, and in conclusion, couldn’t be happier. Not that I didn’t enjoy Notes, but its tone, as I said before, sincerely felt like walking through thick mud of existentialism, and very understandably, was quite tiring. The Gambler also had the same taste of muddiness, but it was much lighter, and thus much easier to walk through and navigate within the story. This structure of The Gambler even enhanced my past experience of Notes. The dried mud on me helped me to have a feel of The Gambler better, while The Gambler’s lighter tone helped me to explore and understand the mud better, which added insight into my experience with Notes.

My only negative criticism, although it has been clearly pictured by its destructive nature, would be that there is no escaping perceiving gambling in an intriguing way, possibly due to Dostoevsky’s masterful writing.

[Brady Meyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes from the Underground
In this brilliant but harrowing novella, Dostoevsky gives us the confession of a “spiteful”, “sick”, and “unattractive” man. We are instantly offended by the nature of this man but, through the magic of Dostoevsky, we catch ourselves agreeing with this grotesque demon. Why is it that the modern world continues to create rivers of blood that flow “merrily like champagne”? Why is it that in an age of easy access to knowledge people continue to choose to hurt others? Is it possible to still have happiness in a world where we have to justify our existence through freedom to act as we wish? While at first I was a little uncertain and intimidated by the many philosophical allusions, within just a few chapters I was already won over by this bleak anti-hero and his dark night of the soul.

The Gambler
While I liked the autobiographical details about gambling and addition, and the artificial relationships between all these out of control characters, I didn’t really connect with the narrative and found myself pushing forward just to finish, rather than to see what happened next. While the Grandmother was my favorite character of the book, everything else felt a little flat before and after her appearance.

[David Hanley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes from the Underground adds no positive contribution to a worldview, but merely - like Descartes - negatively attacks worldviews with the force of a wrecking ball. But the more one develops mentally, the more one realizes it is merely a bud of a not-yet-blossomed intellect that solely casts doubts and questions. Questioning and doubting are very easy things to do, especially when casting judgement upon the human race. No, what is much harder to do is to provide answers for tricky questions.

The Underground man starts with a polemic against Utopianism. One may be understandably puzzled by his arguments, and possibly even troubled at their implications. It seems as if there is an advocacy for socio-economic stagnation, a rejection of any hint of the fumes of progressivism. Isn’t it kind of disturbing to oppose progress? His conservatism is based on the principle of human irrationality; his rejection of socialism stems from his disbelief in the naivety of its assumption that such irrationality will go away with enlightenment. This is a seemingly childish sentiment going all the way back to Plato (in a sense this is a polemic against his theory of virtue). However true that may be, to suggest irrationality as a refutation and condemnation of socialism seems to be missing a couple of links in the chain of thought. Surely a society can tend toward betterment despite the irrationality of mankind. Has it not?

When you read the Notes, you cannot help but cringe at the protagonist; personally I did not find him very likable. He is all over the place, riddled with inflamed anxiety, vanity, and seems a bit bipolar in a general essence. These are all traits he admits of himself. And while arguments exist independently of a subject, as Nietzsche famously stated: a person’s philosophy is a personal confession of their psychology. Should we trust the validity of the Underground Man’s thinking processes and conclusions? Are we really going to take seriously the propositions of a deranged person? Once again, I sense the response calling for one to examine the validity of the arguments in themselves, however even the protagonist ridicules the act of rationalizing, and thus my skepticism of his rationality and its origins are consistent with the theme. One can rationalize anything; unfortunately there is a qualitative measure in someone’s thinking that is undetectable in the metrics of “argument and counterarguments, validity and invalidity, right and wrong”.

The answers one would hope to find regarding the betterment of society are found in his other books, notably Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. This book alone serves no real end, but simply does a good job at whetting the appetite of intrapersonal conversation with one’s own convictions and philosophy.

The book is not necessarily a waste of time to read, though. At first I found a lot in common with the protagonist with his inaction and his introverted character. His paradoxical longing for friendship at the same time of his awareness that the people surrounding him were not really what he was looking for I found very relatable. And though I’ve never been down as bad as him with the scenes of drunken proclamations and his emotionally abusive hookups, I nevertheless could see how younger me with improper guidance and elevated stress would be bound to enter a similar situation of a positive feedback loop of embarrassment and nerves. His own narrative paints his points well: man is irrational, and no amount of intellect changes this. He rightly points out that as man becomes more civilized, he apparently also becomes more bloodthirsty. Keep in mind he wrote this before WWI, WWII, and all the other atrocities we in the contemporary times are well aware of. I specifically think of the Nazi regime with their technological advancements and experimentation, simultaneously alongside their brutish and evil practices.

So what’s the grand take away? That human beings suck, and are very good at sucking. Yet, we make progress, and we meet people in our everyday lives who are more saintly than those scandalous priests and those virtue-signaling politicians. So in all, the take away is simply a sharp psychological reminder to any idealistic social reformer that they are dealing with men who resemble pigs en masse, and to treat their political philosophy accordingly. No one should assume education or wealth will transfigure a person’s heart. In fact, it may simply augment their destructive impulses with more power and less accountability from the law. What one must do is transfigure the heart of a man, which Dostoyevsky reasons is not possible via the Platonic theory of knowledge or the utopian theory of increased quality of life, but only through a transfiguration approximating that of Christ.

It also serves a unique purpose for me. I’ve never really viewed my social immobility as “vanity” before. I have always had a more sensitive side toward embarrassment, and have had immense anxiety in social situations. I often have nothing to say, or I am too scared to really try to say anything out of fear of social failure. I have always been aware of my own self, as anyone is with heightened anxiety, but never have I thought of myself vain because of it. I simply figured it was anxiety and that was all to it. In fact, many people who relate to me and this protagonist would think the opposite: we are not vain, we are filled with low self-esteem. I never look down on anyone, nor do I assume a superior posture in my introvertedness. My silence among people is solely due to my own feelings of inadequacy and a lack of mutual interest among me and the second party. But reading this book made me question my acute sensitivity to embarrassment, and well, yes it does seem that vanity could be a root cause. Constantly being worried about how you appear physically is easily identifiable as vanity, but in the same token being worried about how you appear socially is reasonably equal to the former case. So I will reflect on myself more thanks to this book, and hopefully start a process of humility and caring less about appearances.

[Garth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes from the Underground: This covers a lot of the themes addressed by Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment: criticism of rationalism and utilitarianism, obsessive self-loathing, etc. I felt that Crime and Punishment was more skillful, but Notes really accurately portrays a certain kind of anxious neuroticism that I enjoyed.

The Gambler: This was a more straightforward, conventional novel. Very readable. Would like to read a modern version with a DraftKings addict.

[vanessa · Rating 5 out of 5]

*4.5

[Harry Burnside · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started this short novel with some despair as the first few pages seemed like Psychobabble philosophies. However when the story itself started to unfold I was mesmerised with it. My feelings towards the nameless protagonist swung round 360 degrees. A man of confusion, demoralised and sad and never recognising the wisdom at times he had within himself.
His words of advice to Liza the prostitute are riveting.
As with other Dostoyevsky books I have read I found it very powerful.

[Rafał Roman Małek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great and weird at the same time. I would recommend. If given full independence, men will try to get under someone else's control - sadly.

[Witkac · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dość męcząca lektura - pierwszy raz Dostojewski AŻ tak mi się nie spodobał. Mimo to jest to ważne dzieło, które jest preludium do takich książek jak "Biesy", "Idiota" jak i inspiracją dla tak ważnych filozofów egzystencjalnych jak np. Sartre.

[Andreea · Rating 5 out of 5]

2 in 1 = AMAZING

[Chris Johnson · Rating 1 out of 5]

his constant back and forth use of words made me tired and mad. i got to page 38 and wanted to shoot myself. not my kind of read.

[Timothy Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

since kierkegaard came more then a century before this it's not "a forerunner of existentialism", but it is amazing!

[Martyna Kasprzyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Topka

[Jialei · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first work that I’ve read by Dostoevsky. In many ways, it is eye-opening. Professor Jordan Peterson said on Youtube that Tolstoy was about sociology, whilst Dostoevsky was about psychology. Back then, I had just finished reading Anna Karenina, so I initially disagreed. I didn’t understand why Professor Peterson ignored Tolstoy’s knowledge of psychology (take Anna’s pre-suicide thoughts for example). But now I understand why. It is not that Tolstoy’s works lack psychological analysis. It is because Dostoevsky spent far more ink on the inner monologues of his characters, to the extent that you feel as if you are prying into someone else’s mind. Dostoevsky weaved an intricate web of thoughts, and invited a reader to enter the web if not get lost in it.

That was exactly how I felt why I read the Notes from the Underground. The opening sentence is “I am a sick man…I’m a spiteful man. I’m an unattractive man.” These words, simple and powerful, set the tone for the novel. Although the leading nameless character, the ’underground man‘, immediately complains about his physical illness, the word “illness” itself can imply something else as well – his mental illness.

I found part one difficult and unpleasant to read. I felt as if I was sitting opposite to a mentally ill patient. He stared at me and mumbled something incoherent, yet I strongly sensed his mocking tone and his spiteful smile. I wanted to move on (hoping that the next sentence or the next chapter will be something different!) but I couldn’t. He grabbed my wrist and forced me to sit down so that he could continue to vent his anger and bitterness about the outside world.

His mind was chaotic, as he jumped from one topic to another with a grimace. His narrative was unreliable because he kept lying. This was a hint. He was an egoist who cared more about his external image than his internal thoughts.

He was buried in the ‘underground world’ – a castle that he had purposely built to isolate himself from others. Maybe he thought it would bring “tranquillity” to him. But often, it dampened his conscience and darkened his mind. When he reached forty, he and the underground world were like inseparable twins. The light of “the sublime and beautiful” and “goodness” can’t penetrate the thick wall of his dark cellar.

Whilst reading part one, I wanted to feel sorry for him, but I couldn’t. I only felt uncomfortable and confused. I could see that he was suffering from a conflicted mind. For example, he wanted to win over others’ recognition but he despised them at the same time. But his bitterness, his hatred, his lame excuses, his willingness to be buried in his underground world and forsake anything that was “alive” took away my empathy. I simply couldn’t relate to him.

It was only in part two that he became more like a person (rather than a “fly” and a “mouse” in his own words). I saw myself in him and couldn’t help reminding myself that if I was as unfortunate as him (unloved and uncared for whilst young), I might choose the same path of escapism and self-destruction – shutting down my heart and cutting myself off from the outside world which meant that I would neither taste the bitterness of the world nor its loveliness. Like him, I would live in an abyss of darkness where it snows all the time (dreariness), where there was nothing but my imagination, my thoughts, and my feelings. I would exist as an individual. But that’s all. Nothing else.

He did have a choice. After all, he met Liza, a lost woman who had a pure heart, and was willing to love him. But he refused to be awakened by noble instincts that she aroused, and deceived himself by gloriously justifying all his cowardly behaviours. Even at the age of twenty-four, he was already trapped in his underground world, meaning that he lost the capacity to love and trust another person. Liza exposed his scar and wakened his conscience. He was moved, but then immediately, he feared that he would have to abandon his old familiar world and to pursue light – something, despite its beauty and worthiness, symbolised a drastic change. Therefore, he gave up and once again opted for his comfort zone - “inertia”.

I don’t know what message Dostoevsky wanted to send in this dark, gloomy, and miserable story about the underground man. But for me, the take-home message is to never give up on love, on humanity, on anything that is beautiful and sublime, and on anything that is greater than my ego. The underground man is an extreme example, but seeing myself in him is a wake-up call that should serve as a constant reminder. No matter how comfortable and secure the underground world seems, a step away from it is a step closer towards my true self, a more meaningful life, and more adventurous world.

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read these two novellas back to back as part of my read everything by Dostoevsky quest.

Notes from the Underground is written in two parts. The first part was fairly hard to read I found - mostly about theories and philosophy and paints the Underground Man as quite negative and lonely as a result of his take on like.

The second part was reflective, sharing experiences of a younger Underground Man, post student years, and how his life played out as he lived his theories. His anti-socialness made me think of struggles some people who have autism may experience. He invited himself to a party organized by former schoolmates who don't want to social with him and he acts in such an anti-social manner that he just embarrasses himself. And he is cruel to the plight of a sex trade worker whom he reaches out to with compassion, only to withdraw when she reaches out in response.

But in true Dostoevsky fashion, the author really gets into the psyche of the Underground Man, presents his reality in all its detail - puts him right into our face.

I became engaged in the story and trying to understand the Underground Man and his quest for freedom to express himself fully.

The Gambler was also really engaging. The novel starts in the middle - with a Russian tutor serving a formerly aristocratic Russian family living in a hotel in a spa city in Germany - and various members of the household in play. It takes some time to sort out who everyone is and the roles they play in the family and story. Lots of gambling in this novel, both by the tutor and by the Grandmother, which takes us right into the heart of that particular addiction. An addiction that Dostoevsky knew well personally. Really takes you into the mind of the gambler as well as into the culture that surrounded and accepted gambling, specifically Russian Roulette.

Because of the nature of the characters in the novel, a number are French from Paris, there is a fair amount of French dialogue in the book, that is translated in an index at the back, which is very helpful.

I enjoyed both reads.