What do you think?
Rate this book
The Double and The Gambler
The award-winning translators Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky have given us the definitive version of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s strikingly original short novels, The Double and The Gambler.The Double is a surprisingly modern hallucinatory nightmare–foreshadowing Kafka and Sartre–in which a minor official named Goliadkin becomes aware of a mysterious doppelganger, a man who has his name and his face and who gradually and relentlessly begins to displace him with his friends and colleagues. The Gambler is a stunning psychological portrait of a young man's exhilarating and destructive addiction to gambling, a compulsion that Dostoevsky–who once gambled away his young wife's wedding ring–knew intimately from his own experience. In chronicling the disastrous love affairs and gambling adventures of Alexei Ivanovich, Dostoevsky explores the irresistible temptation to look into the abyss of ultimate risk that he believed was an essential part of the Russian national character.
344 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1846
357 people are currently reading
5137 people want to read
About the author
Fyodor Dostoevsky
3,218 books72k followers
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)
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)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 248 reviews
May 8, 2022
I continue on the #yearofdostoevsky and finally have arrived at the first Dostoevsky I have not read! The Double was written and published right before young Dostoevskys infamous mock-execution in the year of our Lord, 1846.
The major theme we get to explore is this interval split between our self-image and the truth. In other words - our idealized self vs. our actual self.
Dostoevsky gently and humorously directs this story at the beginning making our “hero” (Golyadkin) to have some very similar character traits as other characters that appear again in novels… Mr. Golyadkin is buffoonish and cares way too much about what other people think of him and goes to great lengths to keep up appearances. As the story continues particular from the second half onwards the story gets a bit darker and we start to understand that Dostoevsky wants us to explore this side of humanity that we all have this bit of madness within us too. Dostoevsky was greatly criticized for this novel with critics and readers feeling like exploring madness for madness sake was unproductive. The thing is that Dostoevsky was greatly misunderstood in this novel - this portrayal of a consciousness totally saturated with the formulas and slogans of its society allowed us to dig deeper. Dostoevsky wanted us to empathize with Golyadkin and see that maybe we all have a bit of him in us.
The Gambler is a fascinating story told of a man who almost seems mistakenly caught up in the world of gambling. It almost happens by accident but then he ends up getting fully immersed. We see him deny his poetic self but the way he gambles himself is very poetic. There is no rhyme or reason it just happens. My favorite character was grandma… I think some translators called her auntie but I prefer the image in my head as grandma. As usual with Dostoevsky every character is very complex and we always seem to side with the one who causes the most trouble. We are given almost this God like stance of sympathy for human kind and I think that invigorates those of us who feel weighed down by pain from this world.
The major theme we get to explore is this interval split between our self-image and the truth. In other words - our idealized self vs. our actual self.
Dostoevsky gently and humorously directs this story at the beginning making our “hero” (Golyadkin) to have some very similar character traits as other characters that appear again in novels… Mr. Golyadkin is buffoonish and cares way too much about what other people think of him and goes to great lengths to keep up appearances. As the story continues particular from the second half onwards the story gets a bit darker and we start to understand that Dostoevsky wants us to explore this side of humanity that we all have this bit of madness within us too. Dostoevsky was greatly criticized for this novel with critics and readers feeling like exploring madness for madness sake was unproductive. The thing is that Dostoevsky was greatly misunderstood in this novel - this portrayal of a consciousness totally saturated with the formulas and slogans of its society allowed us to dig deeper. Dostoevsky wanted us to empathize with Golyadkin and see that maybe we all have a bit of him in us.
The Gambler is a fascinating story told of a man who almost seems mistakenly caught up in the world of gambling. It almost happens by accident but then he ends up getting fully immersed. We see him deny his poetic self but the way he gambles himself is very poetic. There is no rhyme or reason it just happens. My favorite character was grandma… I think some translators called her auntie but I prefer the image in my head as grandma. As usual with Dostoevsky every character is very complex and we always seem to side with the one who causes the most trouble. We are given almost this God like stance of sympathy for human kind and I think that invigorates those of us who feel weighed down by pain from this world.
December 5, 2025
The Double (1846)
This is probably the first Dostoevsky work I came across that can't just be interpreted in a psychological (and often times also spiritual) way, but also in a supernatural way. It immediately reminded me of Alice in Wonderland 'cause many interpret it as a bright fantasy from a young girl while others dive into a psychological interpretation. That arises the question if fantasies and psychological conditions have a certain connection to eachother. The sane will mock it as pure fantasy while the insane will insist that it's reality.
It's about identity (conflict/struggle), self-awareness, self-perception, self-isolation, paranoia, social hierarchy, social pressure, social humiliation, (social) alienation, self-discovery, consciousness and descent into madness.
The protagonist, Yakov Petrovich Goliadkin, is insecure, shy, socially awkward and feels alienated from his work place and work colleagues. His double on the other hand is charming, elegant, confident and gets along well with his work assignments and work colleagues. The double is the best and perfect version of Mr. Goliadkin. Mr. Goliadkin Jr. isn't hiding behind a facade — too afraid to be judged by society. He is the one who persuades the dreams Mr. Goliadkin Sr. could only wish to fulfil. It shows the complexe dynamic between two personas. One that is too afraid to be itself and the other one who isn't and is able to persuade everything it desires. One seeks constant approval from society — the other being confident enough to suceed in life without the help of others. It's like I watched Mr. Goliadkin Sr. not fully developed, not yet reached his full potential. Whereas Mr. Goliadkin Jr. is his future self, the one that is fully developed and has reached his full potential. Its like character development or even personal development if one interprets it into real life. The most intriguing element was that both personas existed at the same time. It's like the past and the future melted together as one. Soon it also blurred the lines between reality and fantasy. It made me wonder who I should trust. The narrator or Mr. Goliadkin? Who is the reliable one and who the unreliable?
An aspect that made me curious was how deeply both personas could befriend eachother and how long it would last. Both questions were answered to me while I read it. They were both so different and yet one could tell not just by their appearance but also shared experience of social alienation that they were the same person. I wanted them to stay friends forever but also never to meet eachother again. It felt so insufferable to watch them interact with eachother. It was like talking to oneself in a mirror while having a mental breakdown.
In the end there are two possible ways to interpret this story. Just as I mentioned above, in a psychological or supernatural way. I personally prefer the psychological one 'cause it makes more sense to me.
My only criticism is that it was too wordy sometimes. Mr. Goliadkin repeated names way too often in dialogues. Another weakness was the poor pacing.
StoryGraph review (with marked spoilers)
4/5
The Gambler (1866)
Reading this, knowing that Dostoevsky gambled his wife's wedding ring away, makes it somewhat funny.
It's about descenting into gambling addiction. One can analysis a lot about the gambling addiction and how it influenced the lifes and relationships of the characters. There is a great possibility that one can identify with the characters if one is/was a gambler too as Dostoevsky was a gambler himself and probably depicted the addiction well.
Themes include self-destruction, obsession, inheritance, fortune, gambling, luck and ruin. It shows how easily one can get addicted to gambling and the aftermaths of it.
My problem was that I didn't like any character and that the psychological themes weren't as interesting as some other Dostoevsky works. Polina was changing moods like a chameleon changes its colour and Alexei was disgustingly pleased to be a slave. He was rushing after a girl like he had no dignity or respect for himself. Their 'romance' wasn't cute but pitiful.
I didn't enjoy this one that much 'cause it felt very shallow while reading. It just didn't have a huge impact on me. Unless novels like The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment one doesn't think about it for long. Not a memorable story.
StoryGraph review
2/5
Total: 2.8 ≈ 3
This is probably the first Dostoevsky work I came across that can't just be interpreted in a psychological (and often times also spiritual) way, but also in a supernatural way. It immediately reminded me of Alice in Wonderland 'cause many interpret it as a bright fantasy from a young girl while others dive into a psychological interpretation. That arises the question if fantasies and psychological conditions have a certain connection to eachother. The sane will mock it as pure fantasy while the insane will insist that it's reality.
It's about identity (conflict/struggle), self-awareness, self-perception, self-isolation, paranoia, social hierarchy, social pressure, social humiliation, (social) alienation, self-discovery, consciousness and descent into madness.
The protagonist, Yakov Petrovich Goliadkin, is insecure, shy, socially awkward and feels alienated from his work place and work colleagues. His double on the other hand is charming, elegant, confident and gets along well with his work assignments and work colleagues. The double is the best and perfect version of Mr. Goliadkin. Mr. Goliadkin Jr. isn't hiding behind a facade — too afraid to be judged by society. He is the one who persuades the dreams Mr. Goliadkin Sr. could only wish to fulfil. It shows the complexe dynamic between two personas. One that is too afraid to be itself and the other one who isn't and is able to persuade everything it desires. One seeks constant approval from society — the other being confident enough to suceed in life without the help of others. It's like I watched Mr. Goliadkin Sr. not fully developed, not yet reached his full potential. Whereas Mr. Goliadkin Jr. is his future self, the one that is fully developed and has reached his full potential. Its like character development or even personal development if one interprets it into real life. The most intriguing element was that both personas existed at the same time. It's like the past and the future melted together as one. Soon it also blurred the lines between reality and fantasy. It made me wonder who I should trust. The narrator or Mr. Goliadkin? Who is the reliable one and who the unreliable?
An aspect that made me curious was how deeply both personas could befriend eachother and how long it would last. Both questions were answered to me while I read it. They were both so different and yet one could tell not just by their appearance but also shared experience of social alienation that they were the same person. I wanted them to stay friends forever but also never to meet eachother again. It felt so insufferable to watch them interact with eachother. It was like talking to oneself in a mirror while having a mental breakdown.
In the end there are two possible ways to interpret this story. Just as I mentioned above, in a psychological or supernatural way. I personally prefer the psychological one 'cause it makes more sense to me.
My only criticism is that it was too wordy sometimes. Mr. Goliadkin repeated names way too often in dialogues. Another weakness was the poor pacing.
Woe also hides in gilded mansions, my friend, and there’s no getting away from it.
StoryGraph review (with marked spoilers)
4/5
The Gambler (1866)
Reading this, knowing that Dostoevsky gambled his wife's wedding ring away, makes it somewhat funny.
It's about descenting into gambling addiction. One can analysis a lot about the gambling addiction and how it influenced the lifes and relationships of the characters. There is a great possibility that one can identify with the characters if one is/was a gambler too as Dostoevsky was a gambler himself and probably depicted the addiction well.
Themes include self-destruction, obsession, inheritance, fortune, gambling, luck and ruin. It shows how easily one can get addicted to gambling and the aftermaths of it.
My problem was that I didn't like any character and that the psychological themes weren't as interesting as some other Dostoevsky works. Polina was changing moods like a chameleon changes its colour and Alexei was disgustingly pleased to be a slave. He was rushing after a girl like he had no dignity or respect for himself. Their 'romance' wasn't cute but pitiful.
I didn't enjoy this one that much 'cause it felt very shallow while reading. It just didn't have a huge impact on me. Unless novels like The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment one doesn't think about it for long. Not a memorable story.
Why money, you ask? What do you mean, why? Money’s everything!
StoryGraph review
2/5
Total: 2.8 ≈ 3
September 4, 2020
I’d have liked to give this book 4 1/2 stars. I very much enjoyed both of these short novels, combined in a single volume. In both books, Dostoevsky demonstrates his superb skill at describing his characters. I’ll admit that I like The Gambler, to which I give five stars, a tiny bit more than The Double, to which I’d give four stars.
April 15, 2015
Dostoevsky's two novellas, "The Double" and the "The Gambler", are both tales of madness.
The Double tells of the paranoia and schizophrenic breakdown of its hero, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, a man who has little insight into his own character and who struggles to empathize with others. Golyadkin does not possess the social graces to be invited to the grand coming-out ball of his employer's daughter, a girl whom he obsesses about but has likely never met. His shame on such exclusion from polite society and the worse humiliation he experiences on gate-crashing the ball are the triggers of his mental breakdown: Golyadkin meets his double - a man with the same name, background and place of origin as himself but with all the political skills and extraversion that Golyadkin lacks. The double remorselessly subverts Golyadkin's position, gradually eroding his identity. We never learn whether the double is a real person on whom Golyadkin projects an alternate self or else is simply a delusion A closing bathetic scene has Golyadkin in the early hours of the morning hiding alone in the dark and the snow, concealed behind a woodpile in the grounds of his employer watching the daughter's window and waiting to be invited inside. His madness places him alone in a world utterly different from that of the girl he loves, assuming Golyadkin can be said to love at all.
In contrast to Golyadkin, the hero of "The Gambler", Alexei Ivanovich, is a connoisseur of the finest human interactions. As the tutor to a struggling aristocratic Russian family holidaying in a German gambling resort he watches how the family tries to defend what remains of its wealth from avaricious French aristocrats and "actresses". He can well read the motives and emotions of the people surrounding him, no matter how artfully hidden they are behind a screen of social convention. He is intelligent and, except when his passions overtake him, entirely rational. Alexei's' flaw is a lack of insight into his own condition: at the end of the story he cannot control his passion for gambling and, for whatever reason and despite many clues, he fails to recognize that Polina, the elder stepdaughter of the family and the love of his life, is also in love with him. Like Golyadkin, Alexei's madness has left him alone a world away from that of his love.
Which is worst, I wonder - to be mad like Golyadkin, tortured by delusion but unaware of your insanity? Or mad like Alexei, rational but unable to control your compulsions? Hell may well be other people, but madness can surely leave you very alone.
The Double tells of the paranoia and schizophrenic breakdown of its hero, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, a man who has little insight into his own character and who struggles to empathize with others. Golyadkin does not possess the social graces to be invited to the grand coming-out ball of his employer's daughter, a girl whom he obsesses about but has likely never met. His shame on such exclusion from polite society and the worse humiliation he experiences on gate-crashing the ball are the triggers of his mental breakdown: Golyadkin meets his double - a man with the same name, background and place of origin as himself but with all the political skills and extraversion that Golyadkin lacks. The double remorselessly subverts Golyadkin's position, gradually eroding his identity. We never learn whether the double is a real person on whom Golyadkin projects an alternate self or else is simply a delusion A closing bathetic scene has Golyadkin in the early hours of the morning hiding alone in the dark and the snow, concealed behind a woodpile in the grounds of his employer watching the daughter's window and waiting to be invited inside. His madness places him alone in a world utterly different from that of the girl he loves, assuming Golyadkin can be said to love at all.
In contrast to Golyadkin, the hero of "The Gambler", Alexei Ivanovich, is a connoisseur of the finest human interactions. As the tutor to a struggling aristocratic Russian family holidaying in a German gambling resort he watches how the family tries to defend what remains of its wealth from avaricious French aristocrats and "actresses". He can well read the motives and emotions of the people surrounding him, no matter how artfully hidden they are behind a screen of social convention. He is intelligent and, except when his passions overtake him, entirely rational. Alexei's' flaw is a lack of insight into his own condition: at the end of the story he cannot control his passion for gambling and, for whatever reason and despite many clues, he fails to recognize that Polina, the elder stepdaughter of the family and the love of his life, is also in love with him. Like Golyadkin, Alexei's madness has left him alone a world away from that of his love.
Which is worst, I wonder - to be mad like Golyadkin, tortured by delusion but unaware of your insanity? Or mad like Alexei, rational but unable to control your compulsions? Hell may well be other people, but madness can surely leave you very alone.
October 3, 2020
I was surprised when I realized at the end of these two novellas, that I preferred the earlier work over the later one. The Double was one of Dosty's first major works and he was stupidly excoriated for it by Belinsky and other idiots who thought it wasn't "relevant" enough. Whatever. The Double, which could be seen as D-Bag's answer to Gogol's Petersburgian weirdnesses, is an excellent tale which still has a familiar ring even today: paranoia, mental illness untended, and the belief that one is being targeted by some nefarious force, here the titular doppelganger that dogs poor Mr. Goliadkin. It's a fine and dark self versus self story.
The Gambler I remember liking more than I do on this reread. Coming as it did after D-Train's exile, just as he was embarking on the Great Five Novels, would surely be the more mature piece, but I found it honestly a little dull. Dosty had a gambling problem, too, but the somewhat flat pacing and uninteresting drama that unfolds around the little spa of Roulettenburg lacks his usual quiet ferocity.
The Gambler I remember liking more than I do on this reread. Coming as it did after D-Train's exile, just as he was embarking on the Great Five Novels, would surely be the more mature piece, but I found it honestly a little dull. Dosty had a gambling problem, too, but the somewhat flat pacing and uninteresting drama that unfolds around the little spa of Roulettenburg lacks his usual quiet ferocity.
December 23, 2022
The Double - 1 star
Uh-oh Dostoyevsky, not sure what you were thinking with this one but I don't think you knew either ("Most decidedly, I did not succeed with that novel; however, its idea was rather lucid, and I have never expressed in my writings anything more serious. Still, as far as form was concerned, I failed utterly.") Sorry but I gotta agree.
The Double is about Mr. Golyadkin, a titular councillor, who has trouble with social interaction and his sanity as demonstrated by the first sneak with his awkward conversation with his doctor. Given the advice to immerse himself with society, he shows up uninvited to a dinner party of his manager. Humiliated and exiled from the party, he encounters a man that is a splitting image of him, his double. What unfolds is the fall into insanity as his doppelgänger begins to take over his life and turn those he works with and knows against him.
The biggest struggle that I had with this novella was the style of writing. It's been a while since i have attempted Dostoyevsky's work so in part I was questioning my sanity and whether I was just no longer smart enough to understand the writing (thankfully proved wrong with the next novella). I believe this has been expressed as Dostoyevsky (partially failed) intention, as he wanted readers to feel the spiral of insanity that his main character is dealing with. I believe that the execution could have been better because there was confusion form the very start.
I was interested to learn that this novella was in part Dostoyevsky's parody to The Overcoat (on my list to read soon) and potential rebuttal to The Nose (I loved this one which I read within A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: In Which Four Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, and Life). This novella definitely increased my interest in reading more of Gogel's work. There is a successful 2013 film based on this novella that I would like to view as well.
Despite my dislike of this work, I'm still glad I have read it as I continue my journey reading through all of Dostoyevsky's work.
The Gambler - 4 stars
Yes baby, he is back!!! The writing style of this one was so much easier to follow and it was funny and entertaining from the start. Exactly what I have learned to expect from him.
Told in a first person POV, a tutor narrates the happening of a Russian general's family and acquaintances in a German hotel. The general is in massive debt to a French man who is pursuing the general's daughter. Our tutor hopes to get Polina's (the daughter's) hand in marriage by gambling playing roulette and winning enough money to out-do the French man and eventually an English-man. The general meanwhile is awaiting the death of his aunt (hoping to gain her fortune) so he can marry a French noblewoman.
I absolutely adored this cast of characters, especially the aunt who arrives and wreak hell on her family who she knows is wishing for her death and fortune. She was an absolute hoot.
I was surprised to find out that gambling was an activity Dostoyevsky was very familiar with, having gone into massive debt for it and needed to write this novel to pay it off.
Highly encourage anyone to pick this one up as a great introduction to Russian literature without the length that usually accompanies them. Excited to have this edition in my collection and looking forward to reading more Russian literature and Dostoyevsky in the future.
2.5+/5
Uh-oh Dostoyevsky, not sure what you were thinking with this one but I don't think you knew either ("Most decidedly, I did not succeed with that novel; however, its idea was rather lucid, and I have never expressed in my writings anything more serious. Still, as far as form was concerned, I failed utterly.") Sorry but I gotta agree.
The Double is about Mr. Golyadkin, a titular councillor, who has trouble with social interaction and his sanity as demonstrated by the first sneak with his awkward conversation with his doctor. Given the advice to immerse himself with society, he shows up uninvited to a dinner party of his manager. Humiliated and exiled from the party, he encounters a man that is a splitting image of him, his double. What unfolds is the fall into insanity as his doppelgänger begins to take over his life and turn those he works with and knows against him.
The biggest struggle that I had with this novella was the style of writing. It's been a while since i have attempted Dostoyevsky's work so in part I was questioning my sanity and whether I was just no longer smart enough to understand the writing (thankfully proved wrong with the next novella). I believe this has been expressed as Dostoyevsky (partially failed) intention, as he wanted readers to feel the spiral of insanity that his main character is dealing with. I believe that the execution could have been better because there was confusion form the very start.
I was interested to learn that this novella was in part Dostoyevsky's parody to The Overcoat (on my list to read soon) and potential rebuttal to The Nose (I loved this one which I read within A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: In Which Four Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, and Life). This novella definitely increased my interest in reading more of Gogel's work. There is a successful 2013 film based on this novella that I would like to view as well.
Despite my dislike of this work, I'm still glad I have read it as I continue my journey reading through all of Dostoyevsky's work.
The Gambler - 4 stars
Yes baby, he is back!!! The writing style of this one was so much easier to follow and it was funny and entertaining from the start. Exactly what I have learned to expect from him.
Told in a first person POV, a tutor narrates the happening of a Russian general's family and acquaintances in a German hotel. The general is in massive debt to a French man who is pursuing the general's daughter. Our tutor hopes to get Polina's (the daughter's) hand in marriage by gambling playing roulette and winning enough money to out-do the French man and eventually an English-man. The general meanwhile is awaiting the death of his aunt (hoping to gain her fortune) so he can marry a French noblewoman.
I absolutely adored this cast of characters, especially the aunt who arrives and wreak hell on her family who she knows is wishing for her death and fortune. She was an absolute hoot.
I was surprised to find out that gambling was an activity Dostoyevsky was very familiar with, having gone into massive debt for it and needed to write this novel to pay it off.
Highly encourage anyone to pick this one up as a great introduction to Russian literature without the length that usually accompanies them. Excited to have this edition in my collection and looking forward to reading more Russian literature and Dostoyevsky in the future.
2.5+/5
January 1, 2018
You already heard this one, but Dostoevsky once gambled away his wife's wedding ring, This book was in itself a gamble. He took a loan from a guy in exchange for the following wager: if he didn't present the guy with a novel on a certain date, the guy would own all rights to his other books up to that point. He procrastinated in order to write The Idiot, ended up hiring a stenographer with weeks to spare and dictating this whole thing to her, got it to the guy on the very last day and promptly married the stenographer. That is a good story.
February 22, 2019
I first read "The Gambler" when I was 17, a time I knew next to nothing about this dirty business of life. There was a scene in the book in which the main character expresses his feelings to the woman he wants to both love and murder (in true Dostoevskian fashion), where he says that sometimes, when he hears the rustling of her dress as she paces across the wooden floorboards, his desire for her makes him want to eat his fingers. It was a feeling I didn't understand at that age, but I vowed to experience it in this lifetime.
Coming to it now, I found that the novella has stood the test of time for me. Granted, I no longer read it as a book about gambling or addiction, but one about the destructiveness of desire. It's not at the depth of his big novels, but it's still vintage Dostoevsky. No one like him can plunge into the human soul and show us both our moral decay and the crumbs of our saintliness, and the relentless battle between the two sides of who we are.
"The Double" is definitely not a shining gem (his second novel and the one that hammered his reputation as a young novelist), but worth your time if you want to see how his characters/world view developed over time.
A gorgeous translation by Pevear/Volokhonsky - as are all their works.
Coming to it now, I found that the novella has stood the test of time for me. Granted, I no longer read it as a book about gambling or addiction, but one about the destructiveness of desire. It's not at the depth of his big novels, but it's still vintage Dostoevsky. No one like him can plunge into the human soul and show us both our moral decay and the crumbs of our saintliness, and the relentless battle between the two sides of who we are.
"The Double" is definitely not a shining gem (his second novel and the one that hammered his reputation as a young novelist), but worth your time if you want to see how his characters/world view developed over time.
A gorgeous translation by Pevear/Volokhonsky - as are all their works.
September 24, 2023
Surprisingly, this book concludes both my favorite (or at least one of my many favorites) and my least favorite of Dostoevsky’s novels.
The Double
I really don’t have to say much about the Double. I guess on its own, I would give it 3 stars if I were feeling generous.
The story is a bit like Fight Club, but make it Russian and way more confusing. There was a lot of potential, and it’s of course written great with the typical Dostoevsky hero (aka a man closer to insanity than me to quitting my job), but it still feels like it could’ve been better, mostly because at times it dragged on and it really was confusing as hell.
The Gambler on the other hand, though…
The Gambler
The Gambler is definitely the best book about gambling addiction I've ever read.
... Ok, ok, it's the only book about gambling addiction I've read, but still.
The depiction of addiction is incredible, which is not very surprising, as Dostoevsky himself was a lifelong gambling addict.
Watching our main character, Alexei, dive deeper and deeper into this obsession and lose himself along the way was almost scary to read.
I also found myself getting way too invested in the whole thing. Alexei was playing roulette, which is so easy that even I understand the rules (and that's saying something) and every time he played, I was also hoping, wishing and dreading the outcome of the game.
I even found myself screaming "Don't place it on zero, what the hell!?" out loud at one point. So yeah, as you can see, the gambling spirit definitely got to me too.
At first, Alexey’s character threw me a bit off, though. He just seemed to be so... much? Very dramatic and even a bit ridiculous (much like Mr. Goliadkin in The Double), but he really grew on me (unlike Mr. Goliadkin in The Double).
It's also impressive how much character development we get in such a short book.
But then again, it's Dostoevsky, so I don't know why I am even surprised. That guy was a genius.
The Double
I really don’t have to say much about the Double. I guess on its own, I would give it 3 stars if I were feeling generous.
The story is a bit like Fight Club, but make it Russian and way more confusing. There was a lot of potential, and it’s of course written great with the typical Dostoevsky hero (aka a man closer to insanity than me to quitting my job), but it still feels like it could’ve been better, mostly because at times it dragged on and it really was confusing as hell.
The Gambler on the other hand, though…
The Gambler
The Gambler is definitely the best book about gambling addiction I've ever read.
... Ok, ok, it's the only book about gambling addiction I've read, but still.
The depiction of addiction is incredible, which is not very surprising, as Dostoevsky himself was a lifelong gambling addict.
Watching our main character, Alexei, dive deeper and deeper into this obsession and lose himself along the way was almost scary to read.
I also found myself getting way too invested in the whole thing. Alexei was playing roulette, which is so easy that even I understand the rules (and that's saying something) and every time he played, I was also hoping, wishing and dreading the outcome of the game.
I even found myself screaming "Don't place it on zero, what the hell!?" out loud at one point. So yeah, as you can see, the gambling spirit definitely got to me too.
At first, Alexey’s character threw me a bit off, though. He just seemed to be so... much? Very dramatic and even a bit ridiculous (much like Mr. Goliadkin in The Double), but he really grew on me (unlike Mr. Goliadkin in The Double).
It's also impressive how much character development we get in such a short book.
But then again, it's Dostoevsky, so I don't know why I am even surprised. That guy was a genius.
June 4, 2022
4.5 stars (or who really cares?)
Two great books from the master.
I would rate the Gambler as a five-star read.
It is an impeccable story that misses nothing and includes all on the human spectrum.
I shake my head at this novella. At these three-hundred or so written pages. Stunning.
And the Double as a four-star story.
He is a singular author.
Two great books from the master.
I would rate the Gambler as a five-star read.
It is an impeccable story that misses nothing and includes all on the human spectrum.
I shake my head at this novella. At these three-hundred or so written pages. Stunning.
And the Double as a four-star story.
He is a singular author.
October 28, 2020
Dastayosky wrote The Double to pay his loan back, but this made it his best novel. I'm totally in line with this assertion.
December 25, 2009
The Double is Dostoevsky's most enigmatic work. If you've read Gogol's Petersburg works, it's easy to see the correlation. Unfortunately, D was also heavily influenced by the critical acclaim he received for his first work Poor Folk, when he wrote this – in most opinions his least readable novel.
The "Akaky-type" from Gogol's Overcoat, Goliadkin is an anti-hero that inspires loathing. He makes all the wrong decisions and does so from a desperate and uncommonly low self-esteem. What irks me most is his unfounded paranoia, which the plot seems to confirm. Enter his double – the exact same man but with a napoleonic vitality who supplants the original Goliadkin on every level. I don't want to leave spoilers, so I'll just say it's difficult to figure out just how trustworthy Goldiadkin is in the telling. Is the double real or imagined?
The Gambler seems shallow and melodramatic at first. Familial intrigues and trysts abound, and the main character seems typically full of angst and unrequited love. Halfway through, however, a comedic tone emerges with the entrance of the grandmother. Her interaction with the heretofore boring characters breaths life and wit into the dialogue, and doubles the effect of the desperate main character's role. Suspense is maintained remarkably by keeping Alexei Ivanovich a novice gambler for most of the story, solidifying the title as more a metaphor of risk than a literal reference to roulette.
Dostoevsky wrote this on a painful deadline (he took a gamble himself on the terms), between installments of Crime and Punishment, and it shows mostly in the blurry timeline of the plot (there are numerous recollections of characters seemingly out of place). The epilogue style "winding down" of the last few chapters seems muddled and somewhat disappointing.
These things aside, Alexei Ivanovich is a purely new and exciting type. He is a blind and egoistic coward, a variation on the underground man, but with fresh impulses and surprising nuances, specifically regarding slavery to addiction and the excitement of risk. The roulette scenes and gaming philosophies are honest and journalistic, taken from Dostoevsky's own experience.
The "Akaky-type" from Gogol's Overcoat, Goliadkin is an anti-hero that inspires loathing. He makes all the wrong decisions and does so from a desperate and uncommonly low self-esteem. What irks me most is his unfounded paranoia, which the plot seems to confirm. Enter his double – the exact same man but with a napoleonic vitality who supplants the original Goliadkin on every level. I don't want to leave spoilers, so I'll just say it's difficult to figure out just how trustworthy Goldiadkin is in the telling. Is the double real or imagined?
The Gambler seems shallow and melodramatic at first. Familial intrigues and trysts abound, and the main character seems typically full of angst and unrequited love. Halfway through, however, a comedic tone emerges with the entrance of the grandmother. Her interaction with the heretofore boring characters breaths life and wit into the dialogue, and doubles the effect of the desperate main character's role. Suspense is maintained remarkably by keeping Alexei Ivanovich a novice gambler for most of the story, solidifying the title as more a metaphor of risk than a literal reference to roulette.
Dostoevsky wrote this on a painful deadline (he took a gamble himself on the terms), between installments of Crime and Punishment, and it shows mostly in the blurry timeline of the plot (there are numerous recollections of characters seemingly out of place). The epilogue style "winding down" of the last few chapters seems muddled and somewhat disappointing.
These things aside, Alexei Ivanovich is a purely new and exciting type. He is a blind and egoistic coward, a variation on the underground man, but with fresh impulses and surprising nuances, specifically regarding slavery to addiction and the excitement of risk. The roulette scenes and gaming philosophies are honest and journalistic, taken from Dostoevsky's own experience.
April 2, 2009
The Gambler was great. Five stars. Exactly what I want from Dostoevsky. The Double was terrible for me. It's been a long time since I've read a novel that was so painful to read and that I got so little out of. I have no idea what happened. All I know is that the style was so painful that I had to use a mantra to get through it. "This is Dostoevsky. There's got to be a point. This is Dostoevsky. There's got to be a point."
June 9, 2016
[review for The Double]
A mock-heroic, conducted in the indirect language and polite circumlocutions of the civil service classes. I felt for the absurd anxieties of our ridiculous hero from the start – I don’t think D. is being mean to him, but that’s what a softy I am. A bit obviously, he didn’t know how to end it. Young, messy; a sketch for future work; funny, and kind of brilliant.
A mock-heroic, conducted in the indirect language and polite circumlocutions of the civil service classes. I felt for the absurd anxieties of our ridiculous hero from the start – I don’t think D. is being mean to him, but that’s what a softy I am. A bit obviously, he didn’t know how to end it. Young, messy; a sketch for future work; funny, and kind of brilliant.
May 1, 2024
I really enjoyed the first half of “The Double” after that everything became boring and made no sense to me, I am not sure what caused that but maybe because I left it unread for 5 months and then went back to it really made me lose interest, so I'm hoping this will not make me get disappointed with others works of Dostoevsky.
February 21, 2024
4.5 stars. Both reaching their climax in the last few pages and ending so abruptly I feel like I'm teetering on a precipice.
The Double
Even though this was a third person narrative, it is basically a first person point of view of our bumbling, nervous and pitiful "hero", Goliadkin. And boy did I feel completely immersed in his mind.
A wild descent into madness. Was the double a real doppelganger or a projection of our ideal self?
The Gambler
Russians gamble. Women toy with the men who love them.
Another masterful spiral into an uncontrolled state of mind. Feverish addiction. Alexei's flaws were not as immediately obvious as Goliadkin's, and the slow reveal made his ending a bit more tragic.
The Double
Even though this was a third person narrative, it is basically a first person point of view of our bumbling, nervous and pitiful "hero", Goliadkin. And boy did I feel completely immersed in his mind.
A wild descent into madness. Was the double a real doppelganger or a projection of our ideal self?
The Gambler
Russians gamble. Women toy with the men who love them.
Another masterful spiral into an uncontrolled state of mind. Feverish addiction. Alexei's flaws were not as immediately obvious as Goliadkin's, and the slow reveal made his ending a bit more tragic.
December 10, 2025
Intriguing enough plot and the prose compliments the protagonist mental state. Psychological themes are compelling but I can't say that it was always enjoyable to read such an erratic story.
Note: I only read The Double
Note: I only read The Double
June 25, 2021
The novels were both good, don’t get me wrong. Dostoyevsky is a master at his craft. But they have much to be desired as compared to his other novels. Perhaps they both were rushed…
Regardless Dostoyevsky hit on two major issues of today (he was either ahead of his time or these issues are as old as time; I vote for the latter): mental illness and addiction. It’s interesting that the publishers of this edition bunched both novellas into one publication.
As always with a Russian Novel I find myself despising all the characters but ultimately cheering or mourning for them in the end.
Regardless Dostoyevsky hit on two major issues of today (he was either ahead of his time or these issues are as old as time; I vote for the latter): mental illness and addiction. It’s interesting that the publishers of this edition bunched both novellas into one publication.
As always with a Russian Novel I find myself despising all the characters but ultimately cheering or mourning for them in the end.
January 18, 2022
2 stars for 'The Double', 4 stars for 'The Gambler' - so the combo rounds out to 3 stars (with an edge toward 3.5).
I started off by reading co-translator Pevear's introduction. I often don't read introductions to classic works. Sometimes they can go on and on and on, in such an academic manner that boredom can set in. But Pevear is of much fewer words with his intro and it's charged with a noticeable enthusiasm that makes you look forward to the read.
And then there's the read itself.
Dostoevsky certainly gets points for publishing 'The Double' at the young age of 25. That's impressive. (~as is the translation; both 'The Double' and 'The Gambler' are adroitly done and both are quick, smooth reads.) What's less impressive is how the author handles his story of a mental breakdown. He establishes that the protagonist has a doppelganger. And essentially that's all he does. In scene after scene after scene, Dostoevsky chases his tail in repetition, with precious little variation (until the very last page). It makes for rather inert storytelling.
I picked this volume up because I had recently seen Karel Reisz's 1974 film 'The Gambler', starring James Caan (in one of his best performances) and became curious about the book. The film is said to be "a loose adaptation" of Dostoevsky's work - but that's being generous. It would be more accurate to call the film "partially inspired by".
The film and the book are polar opposites in terms of narrative. They share the occasional complementary sentiment, i.e.:
Dostoevsky's tale - written 20 years after 'The Double' so it's noticeably a more mature work - actually takes awhile to get into gear and, with its particular combination of characters, can seem disorienting. It really only falls into solid place with the introduction of the feisty grandmother believed to be near-death. Many family members have been waiting for her to die so that they can reap the benefits of inheritance - however, once granny shows up for a visit, she reveals that she is very much alive and almost physically kicking.
Not only that. As if to spite her relations, she is going to flaunt her money around town. ~which is how she falls into the vortex of gambling; a fate which will befall the protagonist as well. The 'addiction' scenes are somewhat chilling in their execution. (Reminded me of why I've never so much as bought a lottery ticket.)
It's fortunate that Dostoevsky gives the reader something of a reprieve when he wraps things up, in giving his leading character (the tutor Alexei) not only a surprising confrontation but a self-cleansing change of heart.
I started off by reading co-translator Pevear's introduction. I often don't read introductions to classic works. Sometimes they can go on and on and on, in such an academic manner that boredom can set in. But Pevear is of much fewer words with his intro and it's charged with a noticeable enthusiasm that makes you look forward to the read.
And then there's the read itself.
Dostoevsky certainly gets points for publishing 'The Double' at the young age of 25. That's impressive. (~as is the translation; both 'The Double' and 'The Gambler' are adroitly done and both are quick, smooth reads.) What's less impressive is how the author handles his story of a mental breakdown. He establishes that the protagonist has a doppelganger. And essentially that's all he does. In scene after scene after scene, Dostoevsky chases his tail in repetition, with precious little variation (until the very last page). It makes for rather inert storytelling.
I picked this volume up because I had recently seen Karel Reisz's 1974 film 'The Gambler', starring James Caan (in one of his best performances) and became curious about the book. The film is said to be "a loose adaptation" of Dostoevsky's work - but that's being generous. It would be more accurate to call the film "partially inspired by".
The film and the book are polar opposites in terms of narrative. They share the occasional complementary sentiment, i.e.:
"There is, there is pleasure in the ultimate degree of humiliation and insignificance!"and
I'm convinced that it was half vanity; I wanted to astonish the spectators with an insane risk, and--oh, strange feeling--I distinctly remember that suddenly, indeed without any challenge to my vanity, I was overcome by a terrible thirst for risk.But, mostly other than a few intense depictions of gambling addiction, the book and the film are strangers.
Dostoevsky's tale - written 20 years after 'The Double' so it's noticeably a more mature work - actually takes awhile to get into gear and, with its particular combination of characters, can seem disorienting. It really only falls into solid place with the introduction of the feisty grandmother believed to be near-death. Many family members have been waiting for her to die so that they can reap the benefits of inheritance - however, once granny shows up for a visit, she reveals that she is very much alive and almost physically kicking.
Not only that. As if to spite her relations, she is going to flaunt her money around town. ~which is how she falls into the vortex of gambling; a fate which will befall the protagonist as well. The 'addiction' scenes are somewhat chilling in their execution. (Reminded me of why I've never so much as bought a lottery ticket.)
It's fortunate that Dostoevsky gives the reader something of a reprieve when he wraps things up, in giving his leading character (the tutor Alexei) not only a surprising confrontation but a self-cleansing change of heart.
Read
February 7, 2017Two novellas each about a particular brand of insanity. Oh well, one can critique it as such, much like how Dostoevsky critiqued the Russian character itself, especially in The Gambler. If I were to express my true thoughts at what are to be considered some of the most forgotten and fleeting stories of Dostoevsky, it would be that The Double is not without merit but is also not to be recommended, but The Gambler would appeal very much to a wide variety of reader. Doubtless you would expect me to ramble about the unclear and flat-falling P&V translation for The Double, yet much of that comes anyway from the already nervous and stuttering narrator and a variety of incidents he's involved in which I could only laugh or cry. Yes, the doppelganger, it's all about the doppelganger, but in the end its the narrator who ruins himself, what could Dostoevsky possibly be saying with this recurring theme I wonder!? I think anyone who has read The Gambler would know it's not just a purely psychological novel about the evils of chance and folly of money but includes a highly stringent and often more complex set of relationships than any novella should deserve. An aspect of gambling is self-affirmation as Dosty has not failed to notice; a pride and a fear and a sense of wonder that drives us to bet again and again against all logic that an outsider could not possibly hope to understand not having experienced it himself. Read it for this truly edge-of-the-seat writing and nothing more.
December 22, 2021
The Double - 4.5 stars
The Gambler - 5 stars
The Gambler - 5 stars
September 8, 2024
The Double was shite. The Gambler, magnifique.
July 11, 2024
okay so i have very different opinions for both the double and the gambler. i’d give the double a 2/5 at most and the gambler a 5/5 so im gonna log it as 4.
the double- worse version of dr jekyl and mr hyde. the ambiguous ending was interesting but it felt like it all built up to nothing and goliadkin spiraled in a way that was not at all interesting or profound in any way. painfully boring, worst of dostoevsky’s books that i’ve read.
the gambler- a great telling of how gambling continually ruins people and their lives. it shows how real the addiction is by portraying the rush of the stakes and how much more winning is than just money to gambling addicts. i feel that the reason it was so well written is dostoevsky’s own gambling addiction, i find it interesting that he could write about it in such a critical way while also succumbing to it but i also feel like that makes a lot of sense. i really enjoyed it and also the relationship between alexei and polina was super interesting and really drove the addiction kinda indirectly.
the double- worse version of dr jekyl and mr hyde. the ambiguous ending was interesting but it felt like it all built up to nothing and goliadkin spiraled in a way that was not at all interesting or profound in any way. painfully boring, worst of dostoevsky’s books that i’ve read.
the gambler- a great telling of how gambling continually ruins people and their lives. it shows how real the addiction is by portraying the rush of the stakes and how much more winning is than just money to gambling addicts. i feel that the reason it was so well written is dostoevsky’s own gambling addiction, i find it interesting that he could write about it in such a critical way while also succumbing to it but i also feel like that makes a lot of sense. i really enjoyed it and also the relationship between alexei and polina was super interesting and really drove the addiction kinda indirectly.
February 16, 2022
Tomorrow, it'll all be over tomorrow!
September 23, 2022
The Double ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ : the original fight club
The Gambler ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: amazing story
The Gambler ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: amazing story
June 30, 2024
The Double: 4 Stars
The Double is deceptive and dark, with no clear line of truth or reality for the reader to grasp on to. Its thrilling moments are paired well with cringe-worthy comedic scenes where we watch sympathetically as Golyadkin stumbles horribly over his words. It's very entertaining--definitely worth the read.
The Gambler: 2 Stars
The Gambler, however, was really disappointing. The plot was weak; it was scattered and thin, and moved much too quickly. The final chapter gave me whiplash, and didn't allow the reader any time to sit in the despair of the character. As far as Russian criticisms of gambling goes, the chapters regarding Dolokhov and Nikolai in book 4 of War and Peace were significantly more powerful. There may be some genius mode of writing or some incredibly woven theme--because it's Dostoevsky--but if there is, I'm afraid I've missed it.
The Double is deceptive and dark, with no clear line of truth or reality for the reader to grasp on to. Its thrilling moments are paired well with cringe-worthy comedic scenes where we watch sympathetically as Golyadkin stumbles horribly over his words. It's very entertaining--definitely worth the read.
The Gambler: 2 Stars
The Gambler, however, was really disappointing. The plot was weak; it was scattered and thin, and moved much too quickly. The final chapter gave me whiplash, and didn't allow the reader any time to sit in the despair of the character. As far as Russian criticisms of gambling goes, the chapters regarding Dolokhov and Nikolai in book 4 of War and Peace were significantly more powerful. There may be some genius mode of writing or some incredibly woven theme--because it's Dostoevsky--but if there is, I'm afraid I've missed it.
December 24, 2024
double two stars gambler five. upsetting portrayal of an addict’s unintentional selfishness!
August 29, 2023
Though I've only read The Double thus far, and I may not get to The Gambler for many months, I felt I could post a review for half this book. Honestly...I have very little idea what happened. Was it all a dream? Did he die? Was he kidnapped by a German? I've got next to nothing. Hopefully after a few months of marinating in my mind and then studying it in class, this will make more sense!
*Later* I still have not read The Gambler, but I have reread The Double, and since the page count adds up, I'm marking this complete. I'll edit my review if I get around to The Gambler anytime soon. I have a new theory on The Double--the narrator, I believe, portrays the world purely as Goliadkin sees it. Which means it takes a second time through to recognize that Goliadkin Jr. may be mostly (if not entirely) an invention of Goliadkin Sr.'s paranoia. He is convinced of his enemies and their desires to undermine him, and if one realizes that, then his nonsensical conversations make considerably more sense. I think it's also relevant that the two Goliadkins almost never speak to each other unless they're alone. Several of their interactions are through mirrors, which implies that he's not truly there, and the interactions in the office, where Goliadkin Jr. is almost always quite confused could probably be explained as his being a man who coincidentally has the same name, but who is not an identical double the way Goliadkin Sr. believes he is.
*Later* I still have not read The Gambler, but I have reread The Double, and since the page count adds up, I'm marking this complete. I'll edit my review if I get around to The Gambler anytime soon. I have a new theory on The Double--the narrator, I believe, portrays the world purely as Goliadkin sees it. Which means it takes a second time through to recognize that Goliadkin Jr. may be mostly (if not entirely) an invention of Goliadkin Sr.'s paranoia. He is convinced of his enemies and their desires to undermine him, and if one realizes that, then his nonsensical conversations make considerably more sense. I think it's also relevant that the two Goliadkins almost never speak to each other unless they're alone. Several of their interactions are through mirrors, which implies that he's not truly there, and the interactions in the office, where Goliadkin Jr. is almost always quite confused could probably be explained as his being a man who coincidentally has the same name, but who is not an identical double the way Goliadkin Sr. believes he is.
August 1, 2019
These two stories don't necessarily compliment each other thematically but it's very interesting to see the different points of view from such different eras in D's bibliography (The Double was published in 1846, one of his first published works, whereas the Gambler was published 1867, in the midst of his most popular and profound works).
The Double is the story of a man and his doppelganger which is equal parts intriguing and terrifying, but it also shows Dostoevsky to not only be a precursor to what would become Existentialism but also a precursor to absurd and weird fiction (arguably equally as profound and relevant as Existentialism in literature and philosophy).
The Gambler was much more introspective and an example of Dostoevsky's mastery at understanding and describing his characters motivations and internal struggles to understand their own motivations.
The Double is the story of a man and his doppelganger which is equal parts intriguing and terrifying, but it also shows Dostoevsky to not only be a precursor to what would become Existentialism but also a precursor to absurd and weird fiction (arguably equally as profound and relevant as Existentialism in literature and philosophy).
The Gambler was much more introspective and an example of Dostoevsky's mastery at understanding and describing his characters motivations and internal struggles to understand their own motivations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 248 reviews