Since I'm reading Dostoevsky's fiction in chronological order, there's been a span of more than eight months between reading The Double and The Gambler. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of these two novels written twenty years apart in a single volume is quite interesting.

The Double is driven by a wonderfully surreal conceit: Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, a young man constantly plagued by an obsessive desire for recognition by his peers and superiors, meets an exact double in whom he at first finds a brother and confidante, but who quickly takes over his life. This doppelgänger has all of the qualities Golyadkin lacks. He is charismatic, cunning, and effortlessly confident where Golyadkin himself is socially invisible - the sort of nervous, self-effacing person who easily fades into the woodwork wherever he goes. Dostoevsky mines this scenario for a lot of dark humor and paranoid tension. Yet, his portrayal of Golyadkin is, compared to the wonders of his later work, somewhat psychologically shallow. Everyone can identify with the anxieties that Golyadkin's plight speak to - the looming possibility that there is a better version of yourself that you can see, if only in your mind's eye, but whom you will never yourself embody. However, Dostoevsky doesn't really get to the bottom of these anxieties. A great deal of depth can certainly be read into the novel's events, but unfortunately it also must be read into them. At best, Dostoevsky creates many scenes pregnant with possibilities of meaning, but these possibilities rarely come to term in the text itself.

Twenty years later, though, Dostoevsky was in many ways a different man. As displayed in works like Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment, his insight into human psychology and his ability to bring it into literary expression had grown considerably. He evidently paid a heavy price to reach that point, having suffered years of hard labor in Siberia, and then struggled with a crippling gambling addiction. The Gambler is in its own way just as absurd, tense, and funny as The Double, but it's also the work of someone who's intimately, personally familiar with the workings of a mind that has descended into darkness - in this case, the darkness of addiction.

For much of the story here, the title of the novel could easily be understood to refer, not to an individual, but rather to a kind. Our viewpoint character, Alexei Ivanovich, does indeed do some gambling near the beginning of the novel. However, he does so only at the bidding of Polina, the woman with whom he is desperately in love, and immediately gives it up once he realizes it hasn't made him rise in her esteem. For most of the rest of the novel, then, it's others who descend into downward spirals as a result of gambling - sometimes, of the literal sort (as when the formidable matriarch 'la baboulinka fritters away her entire fortune at the roulette table), sometimes in a more figurative sense - while Alexei Ivanovich simply observes and records. By the end, though, we get an insider's view of his descent into his own personal hell - a hell made all the worse because he can't see he's trapped there. Even as Mr. Astley, Alexei's closest ally, confronts him with the certainty that his life is effectively over, that he'll do nothing more with it than gamble, gamble, gamble, like many addicts Alexei is incapable of seeing that he is indeed a lost soul.

If we go by surface appearances, the ending of The Double is darker. However, armed with the skills and insight of a true master, Dostoevsky makes the ending of The Gambler much more horrifying - because more real, more concrete - than he was ever capable of making the horror-movie ending of The Double/i> as a much younger man.

The Double - 3.5 Stars



The Double is a tale of sabotage, mayhem, and paranoia. It tells the story of a humble, servile, and viciously anti-social titular councilor's encounter with his namesake(his doppelganger).

The double is a spiritual successor of Gogol's Diary of a Madman with characteristics of another famous titular councilor(Akaky Akakievich). But in hindsight, the plot shares many similarities to Poe's William Wilson. I wonder if Gogol or Dostoevsky ever read Poe? Poe captures envy with a maliciousness, whereas Dostoevsky portrays it with sympathy. We also see DS hop between third-person & first-person narrative frequently. It's as if the protagonist(Golyadkin Sr.)'s personality is splitting yet again, but this time to undermine Golyadkin Jr's image. The reading experience of this novella is just as maddening as the events. Apparently, the novella reads the same way in Russian(can't blame the translation). Dostoevsky might not be a brilliant prose stylist but he sure is a force of nature when it comes to emotion.

Overall, it's a recommendation for the fans of Dostoevsky to study the genesis of his trademark.

The Gambler - 4 Stars



Written to pay off his own gambling debts, "The Gambler" captures the magic of Pushkin's Queen of Spades. The protagonist (Alexie Ivanovich) has a peculiar addiction to gambling, under the veil of romantic intentions(for Noble Polina), Ivanovich longs for the urge to win big and fast. It's unfortunately tragic to see his tunnel vision engulf him. He doesn't heed to Polina's call for help. More importantly, he totally misunderstands her. Even after witnessing the downfall of Princess, Ivanovich still doesn't control his vice in gambling.

In his own way, Dostoevsky adds his flare similar to "White Night" , "Notes from Underground" and "A Gentle Creature". It's a character study of the narcissism & obsession.

Regards,
Vinay A

Two very different short novels although delirium is common to both. One can see how The Double confused and alienated the critics: it’s an interior monologue of a breakdown and not the sentimental “old tales” that Dostoevsky wrote first. (FD is a bit like Melville who wrote popular subjects and then turned metaphysical.) The Gambler is more straightforward and is a study of Russian (and European) character through the decline of a family and the addiction to roulette. Roulette as a metaphor. Spin, spin….

From "The Gambler"
A noir novella about gambling addiction, risk-taking, and magical thinking.

Alexei Ivanovich suffers from unrequited love for Polina, a woman with secrets, one of which involves a desperate need for money. She asks Alexei to play roulette with her money, but he loses it all.

Polina says:
"'....Why I had that notion [that I would win at roulette] I don't understand, but I believed in it. Who knows, maybe I believed because I had no other choice.'
"'Or because there was all too much NEED to win. It's exactly like a drowning man grasping at a straw. You must agree that if he weren't drowning, he wouldn't take a straw for the branch of a tree.'
"Polina was surprised.
"'Why,' she asked, 'aren't you hoping for the same thing yourself? Two weeks ago you yourself once spoke to me, a lot and at length, about your being fully convinced of winning here at roulette, and tried to persuade me not to look at you as a madman - or were you joking then? But I remember you spoke so seriously that it couldn't possibly have been taken for a joke.'
"'That's true,' I answered pensively. 'To this day I'm fully convinced of winning. I'll even confess to you that you've just now led me to a question: precisely why has my senseless and outrageous loss today not left me with any doubts? I'm still fully convinced that as soon as I start playing for myself, I'm sure to win.'
"'Why are you so completely certain?'
"'If you like - I don't know. I know only that I NEED to win, that it's also my one way out. Well, so maybe that's why it seems to me that I'm sure to win.'
"'Which means you also have all too much NEED to win, if you're so fanatically convinced.'
"'I'll bet you doubt I'm capable of feeling a serious need.'
"'It's all the same to me,' Polina replied quietly and indifferently. 'If you like - YES, I doubt that you could seriously suffer from anything. You may suffer, but not seriously. You're a disorderly and unsettled man....'"
Kindle location 3156-3173

From "The Double"
Mr. Goliadkin, meek bureaucrat, can not yet acknowledge that he is following his own double, a man identical to himself:

"Suddenly, through the howling of the wind and the noise of the storm, there again came to [Mr. Goliadkin's] ears the noise of someone's footsteps quite close by. He gave a start and opened his eyes. Before him, again, some twenty paces away, was the black shape of a little man quickly approaching him. This man was hurrying, flurrying, scurrying; the distance was quickly diminishing. Mr. Goliadkin could even thoroughly examine his new late-night comrade - examined him and cried out in astonishment and terror; his legs gave way under him. This was that same walker he knew, the one whom he had let pass by some ten minutes earlier and who now had suddenly, quite unexpectedly, appeared before him again. But this was not the only wonder that struck Mr. Goliadkin - and Mr. Goliadkin was so struck that he stopped, cried out, was about to say something - and started after the stranger, even shouted something to him, probably wishing to stop him the sooner. The stranger actually stopped some ten paces from Mr. Goliadkin, and so that the light of a nearby streetlamp fell full on his whole figure - stopped, turned to Mr. Goliadkin, and, with an impatiently preoccupied air, waited for what he would say. 'Excuse me, perhaps I'm mistaken,' our hero said in a trembling voice. The stranger said nothing, turned in vexation, and quickly went on his way, as if hurrying to make up the two seconds lost on Mr. Goliadkin. As for Mr. Goliadkin, he trembled in every muscle, his knees gave way, grew weak, and he sank with a moan onto a hitching post. However, there actually was a cause of such bewilderment. The thing was that this stranger now seemed somehow familiar to him. That would still be nothing. But he recognized, he now almost fully recognized this man. He had seen him often, this man, even used to see him quite recently; but where was it? was it not just yesterday? However, once again this was not the main thing, that Mr. Goliadkin had seen him often; and there was almost nothing special about this man - no one's special attention would have been drawn to this man at first sight. He was just a man like everybody else, a decent one, to be sure, like all decent people, and maybe had some merits, even rather significant ones - in short, he was his own man."
Kindle location 883-904

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.

Pretty good! Definitely want to read more Dostoevsky after that. The two were extremely different. The schizophrenic atmosphere and disjointed dialogue of The Double made it difficult to read, but also contributed to an atmosphere of paranoia. I definitely related to some of the more anxious episodes Goliadkin had. It felt like a book written by a very anxious man. I think it was about the internal turmoil, self-doubt, and self-sabotaging behavior anxiety can cause.

The Gambler was much more straightforward, and much more entertaining. I feel it had less to say, maybe because it was written to, ironically, pay off a gambling debt. I think Alexei’s love/lust for Polina is supposed to be compulsive in the same way gambling is. I really liked the grandmother character.

I always forget how funny Dostoevsky is. He and his characters are such astute observers of their own and others' follies and foibles, and the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation is superb. The Double was my preferred of the two stories - a perfect successor to Gogol in its horror of the mundane - but The Gambler grew on me to its ridiculous / ridiculously sad conclusion.

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.

I much preferred The Gambler to The Double, but The Double's themes were fascinating. It was hard to distinguish between what was real and what was in Mr. Goliadkin's head, but his unraveling as paranoia took over was skillfully done and interesting to read.

I really enjoyed The Gambler. The narrator's voice was unique and often hilarious, the situations equally so. At times it just seemed like a well-executed farce, but the story made important points as well. Perhaps because of the time in which it was written, when many in Russia recalled Napoleon’s invasion, there is a preoccupation with the issue of whether citizens of different countries have unique characteristics. One could argue, I suppose, that it is a fine line between such an argument and ethnic stereotyping.

The Gambler is even more impressive when one considers the conditions under which it was written, which is a fascinating story in itself. Good stuff.

It was a little of a Dud. The Gambler was not Dostoevskys best work while The Double did show lots of potential.

The Double made this worth reading, like a 4 star work. The Double was a 1/3 psychological thriller, 1/3 mystery and 1/3 fantasy. The most innovative works of Russian Literature since Gogol! What would YOU do if a clone of you walked up to your job and started out performing you both in work and in your personal life? This question is answered by Golyadkin in The Double. The premise was so well thought out, although the prose and dialogue clearly struggled but I think this was the Young Dostoevsky finding himself. A very clever story all the same!
The Gambler however.....

The Gambler was a 2-star story of, well, a Gambler who was 100% okay with himself swindling and cheating, as he needs to swindle and cheat in order to get by. It was actually the other characters who didn't know how to gamble, neither knew how to gamble at the tables nor at life and they were the true losers. Clever premise, but not well done.

All in all, these were OK but not Dostoevsky's best works

read for rutr 2730 - don't think either of these will end up being my favorite dostoevsky works, but i'm grateful for having read them both. the double makes watching black swan a lot more fun, and the idea of projecting your insecurities onto another separate version of yourself resonated with me a lot. the gambler made me want to gamble, which is the opposite of the point of the story, but also provided an important cautionary tale of adhering to nothing but passion.

This collection contains two of Dostoevsky's novellas, written more than 20 years apart. That said, concerns about identity and isolation permeate both works.


My impressions on The Double:

The Double, in certain ways an echo of Gogol’s The Overcoat, follows Mr. Goliadkin, a mid-level government employee, as he disintegrates following a humiliation at a party before a number of colleagues and superiors. The quality of his disintegration is the central conceit of this novella: Goliadkin imagines that he has a double, a man called by his own name, wearing his own clothes, and interacting socially in place of the true Goliadkin.

The narration takes Goliadkin’s perspective, though it is in third person. The double, or Goliadkin Jr. as the novella humorously titles him, remains something of an elusive mystery, showing up at strange moments out of nowhere and interacting with Goliadkin on occasion. Essentially, the double is a more aggressive, politically savvy, and socially connected individual. Upwardly mobile, Goliadkin Jr. is at first something of an inspiration to Goliadkin, though Jr. eventually becomes a villain in Goliadkin’s increasingly troubled view of reality.

Dostoevsky again gives us a character on the outside of power, one who has so interiorized his experience and reality that his view of the world has become perverted. The real tragedy here is that Goliadkin’s isolation leads to the complete breakdown of his identity.

This is not one of my favorite Dostoevsky stories, though even a lesser Dostoevsky is still better than most everything else out there. As an early work, it shows hints of how he would eventually develop his thematic concerns. And its formal experimentation with looking at disintegration from the inside is certainly significant. But the novella as a whole seems rather slight thematically—an interesting idea carried through that points forward to even greater heights in his work.


My impressions on The Gambler:

Dostoevsky is doing several things in this story that complicate the rather straightforward narrative involving the title character. Before we get to the complications, let’s mark off the basic narrative. The story follows a tutor, Alexei Ivanovich, for a well-to-do Russian family vacationing (or are they running from something back home?) in Roulettenberg, a German city known for its access to gambling. As the story begins, the tutor already seems to have acquired a reputation for playing roulette, even as the story offers only hints or suggestions from other characters in this direction. In line with this, the main character simply does not gamble for the bulk of the narrative. The family that Alexei works for has fallen on hard times, and have been anxiously awaiting news that an old aunt has died so that they might inherit her riches. However, when the aunt shows up in Roulettenberg, Alexei becomes her favored helper at the roulette table as she discovers the excitement of gambling. After multiple trips to the gaming room and short-lived victories followed by extensive losses, the aunt returns to Moscow, while Alexei finally breaks down and gambles in the hopes of finally winning Polina, the stepdaughter of the man he works for. However, Alexei’s winnings only get him the attention of the gold-digging and false Blanche. Alexei never understood that Polina loved him without money and gambling, and that his insistence on taking that road led to his own isolation from her forever.

Dostoevsky uses some different formal conceits in this story that complicate the overall narrative. First, Dostoevsky delivers the story entirely in the first person voice of Alexei. Second, Alexei tells the tale in the past tense, after all has taken place. Third and most interesting to me, Dostoevsky breaks up the telling into different times, so that after certain chapters the narrator notes that time has moved forward, just before he jumps into a description of the events that took place between the previous chapter and this one. Sometimes those retellings take several chapters, but in the last couple of chapters, the time periods extend (nearly a month, and then a year plus eight months). But what does it all add up to?

The subjective first person narrator is not unique to this story in Dostoevsky’s work. It keeps the reader off kilter to some degree, by design—we cannot ever be sure that our narrator is giving us a reliable account of the action. Indeed, as he runs off to gamble after his encounter with Polina, she calls after him something which he doesn’t hear. This incident, more than any other, illustrates the degree to which not only we, but Alexei himself, is caught up in his own thoughts. At this critical moment in his life, the woman he loves calling for him, he can only think about pursuing the path in his own mind. This makes his gambling scene, which he terms a miracle multiple times, into something more akin to high tragedy—his excitement in that scene is something we should read with bitter irony in light of the story’s ultimate conclusion. An event he calls a miracle is actually the tragic result of his own isolation. Before gambling, Alexei had an opportunity to connect with Polina. Instead, he naively believes that choosing gambling opens his road to Polina. The focus on the thrill of the game and the piles of gold and silver prevent Alexei from achieving true communion with another human being.

Dostoevsky seems to be saying that to be truly human (or at least truly Russian, another tendency of his work), we need to get outside of ourselves to really listen to and engage other people. When Alexei inverts that choice—choosing his own mind over the (to him) silent call of his love, we realize that he sees an upside down world. Alexei’s subjective, memory-based account is faulty—not so much because the words of others are misreported, but because Alexei cannot properly interpret what those words actually indicate. That this occurs in several broken-up sections narrated over and after the course of the events in the novel serve to show us Alexei’s descent, so that by the final chapter his complete identification as gambler (something he even denies early in the novel) is the bitterest irony of them all.

That Dostoevsky uses subjective and unreliable first-person narration to illustrate the need for human beings to reach outside themselves and connect with others is part of what’s great about the story, and about his work in general.