Discovering Russian Literature discussion

Discussion thread for The Double Be aware that spoilers may be posted within this thread.

A decent translation is the key to enjoy The Double. Once I tried Garnett version, and it didn't touch on the twisted comedy of the version.

I liked the Jessie Coulson translation. This one

I got a late start on this one, but I just started reading now. One thing which I was confused about is why did Golyadkin feel the need to conceal himself when he saw a couple of his acquaintances walking down the street when he was in the carriage?

I also have gotten a late start and am reading the P&V translation. Not sure why he was hiding from his co-workers either. His behavior is odd and it seems as if he is socially awkward. Not sure if this is how he always acted.

Mary wrote: "I also have gotten a late start and am reading the P&V translation. Not sure why he was hiding from his co-workers either. His behavior is odd and it seems as if he is socially awkward. Not sure if..."

I was also confused about the dinner party scene. Was he really invited to the party? And if he was invited why was he turned away at the door all of the sudden?

I think he wasn't invited to the party but he wanted to go to improve his social status. When he meets his acquaintances, he feels self-conscious because he is all dressed up and in a fancy carriage, that's why he wants to hide. That's what I thought when I read it.

I'm curious about how Goliadkin is a titular councillor, the same rank as Akaky Akakievich in Gogol's story "The Overcoat," yet Goliadkin seems much wealthier--he even has a valet, Petrushka. How can he afford a valet as a titular councillor?

taide wrote: "I think he wasn't invited to the party but he wanted to go to improve his social status. When he meets his acquaintances, he feels self-conscious because he is all dressed up and in a fancy carriag..."

That does make sense, and I had thought that perhaps he was embarrassed because of how he was all decked out traveling in a carriage. But after seeing his colleagues he was having this whole little inner monologue with himself i which he reflected that he was invited to the dinner but maybe that was his own wishful thinking.

Stephen wrote: "I'm curious about how Goliadkin is a titular councillor, the same rank as Akaky Akakievich in Gogol's story "The Overcoat," yet Goliadkin seems much wealthier--he even has a valet, Petrushka. How c..."

Maybe Goliadkin started out with more money than Akaky, he could have come from a wealthier family. Based on what I have read titular councilor is part of the Table of Ranks which was divided into 14 grades. And presumably everyone regardless of wealth or birth starts at the lowest rank and has to work their way up through premonitions.

So it is possibly that Goliadkin started out with more money going into it. Titular is pretty low down on the list of ranks so it might not pay very well.

I finally started this and have made it through the first chapter. This is my third Dostoevsky read (the others being "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground"). As usual, this man is a first-class neurotic, but a wonderful writer.

One thing which confused me toward the end was double real or all in Goliadkin's mind? It seemed as if others saw the double and interacted with him, but was that all part of his delusion?

And was the letter from Clara real or did he imagine that?

Silver wrote: "One thing which confused me toward the end was double real or all in Goliadkin's mind? It seemed as if others saw the double and interacted with him, but was that all part of his delusion?

And wa..."

I have to admit, I didn’t enjoy the book much. I missed what Dostoyevsky wanted to say if there was anything to miss. Roughly speaking, I read the novel as if everything there was delusional. Or at least smudged by delusion. And in this sense, things like whether the letter from Klara was real or not is not the point. To my way of reading it, that is.

Because what is real? For who? What is personality? It’s sure a combination of many things. What this person is at the moment by record (facts). What the person wants to be, his ambitions, dreams (aspirations). What the person did (history). What the person remembers s/he did (memory). What the person could have done but did not and regrets. What the person could have done and is happy that s/he did not do, but still is terrorized by the fact that s/he merely thought of doing it (the latter can lead to suicide btw). And many many other things, of course.

All these aspect of us can’t ever be in perfect harmony, but they must be close enough as most of us make sense to each other somehow. And for some unfortunate it’s not the case. Golyadkin is one.

The novel somewhat suggests (to me) that it should have been written in first person – Golyadkin’s . But it could not be done that way, for Golyadkin’s personality is split. So the author had to use third person instead.

Maybe?

Bootom line. That not everything is clear and can be interpreted in many ways in the novel makes it poetic. And I think it’s a plus. Without it, would there be a book at all?

Bigollo wrote: "Silver wrote: "One thing which confused me toward the end was double real or all in Goliadkin's mind? It seemed as if others saw the double and interacted with him, but was that all part of his del..."

You make some very good points, and thinking of the book within those terms does make a lot of it make more sense. I should not spend so much time trying to figure out what was or wasn't "real" Though there were events and aspects of the story that were confusing at times.

It was interesting seeing that split identity, and the double did seem to represent the self Goliadkin that he wished he could be, and his growing enmity of that self perhaps grown from his resenting of the fact that he could not be that person, or his regret that when he was younger, and when it was not too late, he was not more like that person.

Several people commented to Goliadkin that a person who is truly good and right does not have a double self. This could be read in various different ways. It could mean that in truth they did interact with his double, or it could mean that Goliadkin was simply behaving like he was two distinctly different people. Or he could just have been hallucinating the whole conversation and simply projecting upon other people what he felt about himself.

Silver wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "Silver wrote: "One thing which confused me toward the end was double real or all in Goliadkin's mind? It seemed as if others saw the double and interacted with him, but was that all..."

Yes, yes, yes!