The Double was shite. The Gambler, magnifique.

Finished The Double, which was quite a disappointing read. I've read critiques which shed a little light, but the consensus is that this not among Dostoevsky's better works, an opinion which he shared:

"Most decidedly, I did not succeed with [The Double], 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." His 1877 comment on his 1846 story.

The Gambler was a much easier and more interesting read than The Double, with which it's paired in this edition. However, it pales beside Dostoevsky's novels.

# THE DOUBLE

A strange thing happened. Nobody else realizes the strangeness of it. It does not cause any stir or any questions. The protagonist clearly identifies the anomaly. It's almost ridiculous. And so do the readers. However, others just accept it and the anomaly blends with the usual. People go about their day as if nothing happened. This contradiction of behavior is the focus of the story. Absurdity and almost apathy of society towards such astounding discrepancies. Things which should alarm common sense are figuratively invisible under their eyes. Any outlier blends in with the normal. People care about their own trivialities and upholding the status quo of pretense. Collective consciousness and mass sensibilities are benumbed. Whereas the readers relate sympathetically to the narrator. They see his frustration in gaining no recognition for his own vision and sense. No affirmation is given. No support for his troubles and dissatisfaction with mischief of fate or circumstances. His appeals are almost cruelly silenced.

There's antagonism in between society and individual here. Particularly a critique of how Dostoevsky found Petersburg society during those times. Leaders and influencers are approving of such aberrations in morality. It resembles the cut-throat apathy that any competition within society cultivates. What is laughable with scorn and annoyance is this "lampoonish comedy" upheld by the society's agents. However, there's a perpetual tension and anguish in the observers of such corruption.

Our affected narrator prides on himself being straightforward, direct, no frills, no pretenses. He self-adores and self-respects his simplemindedness and laying his cards open. He is no illusionist, no intriguer. He has no claims on fanciness or being high-classed. He is defiant against all the rigamarole and status quo of acting your way to the top. He is rigorous and hard on "his enemies". Frustrated with everything unfair in the society (and bureaucracy in particular). It also feels like a tale of caution, of being constantly wary, and not letting one's guard down. Replacement of the original Mr. Goliadkin by the fake double points to the threat of being transformed by a society which values deceit and "masks". It is a precipice of social pressure which may cause a desperate man to compromise his integrity and blend in with the pack of wolves as Mr. Goliadkin sees it.

The protagonist is given Kafkaesque characteristics. He is proud of his own integrity and defiant of the machinations of the double against himself. He comes with this stubbornness to fight the system which is planning and scheming against him. He wants to battle his enemies while trying to maintain his honor and preserve his own moral superiority. Disgrace is his ultimate fear and desperation to avoid. His belief in retribution for the insults to his good name and honor is ideal to a fault, and thus pitiful. He is ready to fight for "his own place in the world". He believes passionately in the persistence of pure innocence. He is defensive against all such attacks which are trying to supplant this innocent honesty.

In another interpretation, the threat of being replaced by double is the two-faced lives that the "respectable" society inspires us to follow. Even though it is condemned as dishonesty in an abstract sense of morality, it is perpetrated nonetheless - because it is a tool that achieves something. In the story, the honorable and unpretentious Goliadkin is physically separated from the deceitful and manipulative Goliadkin. But what if he is not really split but just a part of himself that he has dissociated from himself out of repulsion, out of not besmirching his own sense of integrity. This becomes trippy very quickly. The story is very psychological in style. It might very well only appear as a physical separation of the two versions of Goliadkin - but in reality, it might just be a psychological split within Goliadkin, the two parts of which are internally struggling to take over the social identity of Goliadkin. This struggle is driven the conflicting ideals of morality versus respectability.

The constant deprecation and portentous replacement of the innocent, fair protagonist with his double is the cynical manifestation of the author's critique of the bureaucratic society of those times. We get this hunch that this Kafkaesque struggle of the protagonist to coexist peacefully or amicably with his antagonistic double will not end in a successful manner. This is owing to the larger force of the society which values appearances over truth. We are expecting the eventual culmination of the protagonist's bleak hope to survive this calamity - a hope of victory of the simple-minded over the cunning ones who know how to navigate the convoluted systems of the society. The metaphorical interpretation of course could be the demise of the good, pure, honorable spirit in a person to be replaced by a manipulative, coercive and pathological version of the self. This becomes a troubling admission of social Darwinism in action - selectively propagating the superficial and farce personalities while nipping the authentic in the bud.

# THE GAMBLER

A psychological analysis of a gambler. Dostoyevsky himself gambled to a fault. Therefore, it feels honest and personal. The narrator/author tries to take a passionate, anti-moralistic approach to gambling. Why criticize gambling against other risk-prone ways of making money? Challenging the popular, ethical opinion on gambling, he does not criticize greed, or moral question of profiting from others. He also satires on the class-expectations of gambling. A gentleman must play and gamble only for amusement and entertainment, not for the prospect of winning, or with the possibility of feeling disappointment at losses. They are not expected to show emotion. Gentlemanly behavior is above all money matters and consideration. They must simply participate to experience, or even more gentlemanly will be to not participate but observe this fickle ecosystem of gains and losses.

It seems almost ironical and two-faced, this standard of being ambivalent to winning money equally as losing through gambling. To maintain the "gentlemanly" status among those setting this very standard, one needs financial resources. It is putting up a facade to not care about money when it is those who are in possession of money need to constantly and almost always passionately think about maintaining it. Even if there is no organic desire to grow their resources, the society's standards, ways of livings and lifestyle expectations drill down this desire into most participants. Habit takes over thought. Comfort takes over the initiative to change.

Parallel to protagonist's gambling, there is this cruel, almost pathetic love that he garners for a general's step-daughter who is cruelly abusing his love/desire for her. Both parties are aware on the unrequited love that exists between the two, but are tied with gambling and this hopeless pursuit. The protagonist shows the same recklessness in this pursuit of love without caring and feeling for his life. His love is equally complex with feelings of bitterness as he does not really respect the lady or finds her qualities appealing. He rather equally hates her for her apathy and cruelty of his love. There's this double-edged misery of his relationship with this lady that drives him to the point of not caring about anything, even his own life. The protagonist seems to be fighting a battle where his odds of winning are hardly positive.

There's also a connection with Russian image of foreigners, particularly Russian obsession with the French. The Russian aristocrats are following a "form" according to the protagonist - which in other words are external/superficial roles that they are supposed to maintain to be honored and considered amiable. There's that repulsion of upper-class pretense and duplicity that the narrator observes and records. There are complex interdependencies between the members of this bourgeois society. It seems that they are all craving for titles and money, each with their own secrets and scandals as social currencies to trade. The narrator sees this and in his recklessness, creates chaos and havoc in this interplay. He is ready to stake his connections from upper-class society by betting on his hopeless infatuation with the aforementioned lady.

With respect to the subject of gambling, we all expectedly witness the ruin of the persons involved. The consumption by a gambling addiction grows very rapidly, like a fire burning faster every second towards its own extinguishing. However, there's a sense of relief in the exhaustion of the resources, because the spirit of gambling seems inexhaustible. As readers, it's as if we witness something which we want to stop but are in no position to. And ironically, we know the only sure outcome of this play of uncertainty-ruled games.

The story here tells us even more about the players involved. There's the obvious greed which makes people flock around the one with resources. Placating them, flattering them, biding their every wish. There's an amusing spectacle of the rich person running here and there with the authority of a full purse, and all the other opportunistic connections gravitating around this person to steal moments of being benefited upon, or literally steal. It's a pitiful and ugly spectacle. It's cynically and undeniably true as we know. It's something so ingrained in us that it doesn't surprise us as a revelation in the least. Blatant and apathetic money-mindedness is repulsive. But more than a moral commentary on money and its importance, the story presents it as the binding agent of all interests between characters. There's this parasitic relationship between them which falls apart with each disappearing prospect. We are left with no sincerity and no surprise at this flaky crumbling of friendships or families. Gambling reveals the mockery of fate. This book on gambling makes a mockery of the relationships among the upper-class people which Dostoyevsky noticed around him.

Gambling house invites people of all kinds too - those with a lot to lose like the upper-class, or those who are staking the last thing they possess. It is also a comic scene to imagine these diverse afflicted people crowding around a player on a roll. They fuel their hopes with another winner. It establishes their belief in the grace and mercy of Mother Fortune. It seems what they share is this "terrible thirst for risk". They see it in the player on a streak which is propelling him forward. Many of us have probably felt it to some extent and know the gripping feeling of its sweetly painful claws.

The protagonist-gambler understands his own degradation. He stands on the inviting precipice where he jumps every time to go through this cycle of gathering riches and squandering them away in debauchery. And the last thing he wants is morality. Because he loathes his own weakness. There's no defense he offers to justify his wanderings. He is lost by his own admission. This hopeless acceptance follows from his cynicism. There's a resignation to the arbitrariness of life, which his gambling addiction only reinforces as his belief-system. To him fortune keeps on changing just like a roulette wheel. Probably that's why he hardly cares about anything - not even a future is precious or meaningful for him worth preserving, saving for, instead of squandering away. Even when he resolves to change, give up recklessness for something sincere like love, we still can't bet on him with confidence. Despite his good sense of self and consciousness, it's hard to empathize with him and hope for his "resurrection", the readers being half filled with fear that all our hopes will later be rendered redundant. The only thing that we know for certain is that his thirst for risk is not going away soon.

Two Novellas by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in one volume. The Double (5 stars) and The Gambler (4 stars).

The Double was a reread for me. I loved it the first time I read it and I loved it now too. This novella surprised me the first time I read it because I felt a different Dostoyevsky than the one I knew from his other works. The Double is a psychological tale of descent to madness reminiscent of Nikolai Gogol's writing style and themes.

In this tale of madness, Goliadkin, an ordinary man, gives in to his delusion to be someone else, someone who is accepted in the higher strata of Russian society, someone who is respected, someone who is not himself. One particularly difficult day for our friend Goliadkin, a man who looks exactly like him (a doppelganger), speaks like him, acts like him, and has his name, appears to disrupt his ordinary life. This second self takes over every aspect of Goliadkin's life leaving the real Goliadkin confused on how to deal with this second self and with those around him who seem to prefer this other Goliadkin instead of him, his real self. The longer this split in Goliadkin's psyche thrives, the deeper Goliadkin sinks into the abyss of madness.

One of my favorite 19th century philosophers Soren Kierkegaard, in one of his books, The Sickness Unto Death, writes: "[...] and one may fail to notice that in a deeper sense he lacks a self. Such things cause little stir in the world; for in the world a self is what one least asks after [...]. The biggest danger, that of losing oneself, can pass off in the world as quietly as if it were nothing; every other loss, an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc. is bound to be noticed" (62-63).

I loved both novelas; however, I might be the minority in favoring the story of The Double over the story of The Gambler as it looks like most people rate and praise The Gambler more.

(Brief thoughts also on the second novella, The Gambler, soon...).

Here, I will split my review since this book is two books in one.

Staring with The Double, this story was a well-put-together tale of misunderstandings. I normally never like misunderstandings or miscommunications within stories, but this one was much more than that. I couldn't help but feel bad for the man who was just trying to get by when his namesake and clone, as it seems, just swooped in and took everything from him. His job, his acquaintances, and not to mention his sanity. I feel that this story was tragic, however, wasn't one that was irritating or tedious to read.

Moving on to The Gambler. Out of the two stories I definitely enjoyed this one more. The pure concept of creating one's own ruin is so fascinating to me. Alexei, the main character and narrator, throughout the story, is seen as a very smart and calculating individual. He didn't see himself above gambling but he never did it on his own accord. After gambling on behalf of others and seeing their misfortunes he stuck with his belief that he could only win if he gambled for himself. One day, in order to win money for a woman he fancied, he went gambling and ended up winning a grand sum of money, but blew it all in one month in Paris. In turn, this led him to his ultimate downfall. This story was thoroughly entertaining as I find it so interesting to be able to see this descent - not into madness per se, but into an addiction that is so much more than what it seems to be on the outside.

This was such a fun read. Took me a while to finish the first book “The Double” but I finished “The Gambler” in like 4 days I liked it a lot. Lot more easier to follow than the first book which probably definitely adds to it. I like it my next Dostoevsky book will be Devils which is a little scary because it’s 800 pages long but we will persevere.

A thoroughly "meh" read overall.

The Double: I felt like I was having a stroke while reading this. I could not make any sense of the dialogue, much less understand why Goliadkin repeated his subject's name every three words ("Yes, sir, Krestyan Ivanovich. Thought I'm a peaceable man, Krestyan Ivanovich, as I believe I've had the honor of explaining to you, my way goes separately, Krestyan Ivanovich."). It admittedly took me much longer than it should have to realize Goliadkin was the one losing his sanity, not myself. Don't get me wrong - I love a good unreliable narrator, but I just had such a difficult time following this one.

The Gambler: I think Dostoevsky invented the concept of a simp?
"Remember, two days ago on the Schlangenberg you challenged me, and I whispered: say the word and I'll jump into this abyss. If you had said the word then, I would have jumped. You don't believe I'd have jumped?"
Alexei, with all due respect, Polina doesn't give a hot damn about you!

That being said, the other reviews I've read indicate these are two of Dostoevsky's lesser works, cobbled together under time and financial pressure. I'll be sure to give him another go sometime.

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."

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.:

"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.

The double is an absolute dystopian nightmare where a person’s life is being replaced by an identical stranger twin. The gambler on the other hand is more than a novel... It truly changed my perspective toward gamblers and made me understand or empathize with their situation. How it can destroy a man and make him a complete useless living thing shook me with all my being and a Baha quote says that;
“The second a man has nothing to lose, he is the most dangerous creature that can be faced.”-

4.5 rounded up

I’m sure I missed the background to the both these stories. If I had known them, perhaps I would have understood it better. Without this, it just seemed as if the author was relating events that happened, in contrast to building to a problem and resolving it.