The Double
Ratings26
Average rating3.5
15
Ratings26
Average rating3.5
With keen psychological insight far ahead if its time, leading to wide misinterpretation among critics upon its first publication in 1846, Dostoevsky’s second novel is now recognized as one of his most important works and one that inspired literally hundreds of imitations. Unhappy with the negative reception for The Double. Dostoevsky re-wrote his original version of 1846 fifteen years later. Dostoevsky wrote, “This revision, provided with an introduction, will be the equivalent of a new novel. They will finally see what The Double is…In a word, I’m challenging everybody to a battle…Why should I lose a superb idea, a great type in its social importance, which I was the first to discover and of which I was the herald.†?
Reviews with the most likes.
Not sure what to say about this one. I forced myself to a little over the halfway mark, then stepped away from it for about half a year. After that it was okay. It's hard to tell if I just started to enjoy it more after being more familiar with Dostoevsky when I picked it up again, or if it just got better. Either way, this novella left me feeling like it could have been half its already short length. Wading through Mr. Goliadkin's thought and speech was my greatest difficulty, even in light of trying to evaluate what Dostoevsky was doing with the story. Really, say, that aspect was, if you please, truly nightmarish, sir or madam. It was difficult, but definitely had a cool interplay of ideas. Self, society, perception, guilt, and I'm sure many more things–I won't pretend to understand it–are explored through our hero, Mr. Goliadkin, and his friend in The Double. If nothing else its strange composition and plot makes the reader think.
Definitivamente no me llevo bien con el ritmo y la forma de escribir de Fyodor. Segundo intento de amigarme con este autor, creo que somos un tanto incompatibles.
I didn't really like this one but it might have been the translation.
Dostoevsky himself called this book a failure, and he was right. Compared with his other books, this one just lacks a sort of Dostoevsky soul. The language is evidently his, but the plot is not very Dostoevsky-esque. At times, it's hard to understand what is even going on, and when you do understand what is occurring, you don't necessarily know why that is occurring. In any case, I would recommend skipping this one.
