The Double by Fyodor Dostoyevsky 

The core intention of the repetitious utility of character names is a formal technique for submerging the reader further and further into the schizophrenic mind of Mr. Golyadkin Senior. The repetition is intended to agitate us as readers to yield a sense of the character's experience. The conclusion in the 1866 redaction of the story leaves me questioning the very existence of Mr. Golyadkin Junior as a real being at all. It is plausible that Mr. Golyadkin Junior may be an extension of Mr. Golyadkin Senior; or indeed, that Mr. Golyadkin Junior is an aspirational character materialised by Mr. Golyadkin Senior's proclivity toward compulsive and fixated imaginative thoughts. Richard Ayoade's adaptation is quite an interesting film as well. He expands on Mr. Golyadkin's constant running in an interesting visual manner. Overall I would say you have underrated this story, as Mr. Golyadkin is not an unreliable narrator, he is narrating the experience of an unreliable psychological instability in an unreliable and unstable environment that is highly conducive to terrifying forms of manic schizophrenia. But I do agree that this story is not accessible and it is far from conventional, but this has to be the case with such an endeavour that this story would pertain to be for a writer such as Dostoyevsky.

Woke up from a long sleep. He yawned, stretched, and at last opened his eyes completely. For two minutes, however, he lay in his bed without moving, as though he were not yet quite certain whether he were awake or still asleep, whether all that was going on around him were real and actual, or the continuation of his confused dreams.

I felt like I was I was developing schizophrenia during my reading of this. Hard to get through. But brilliant...

i just finished it. my main takeaway is that the confusion you get from reading is the same confusion the protagonist feels, like what is real? what is not? and you have to continue reading to find out, just as he has to continue figuring it out. but neither he nor we ever does. i think the surgeon in the end is the author himself, we thought and hoped we would find peace in the end, but he reveals himself saying that we won't, and our reactions is exactly the same as the protagonist's, which is a bit... chilling, to say the least.

" Our hero " is of course ironic.

This book is hilarious! Especially the relationship between Golyadkin and his implacable servant, Petrushka. Once I got a feel for Dostoyevsky's irony, he became, for me, the funniest novelist. No one understands the human personality like him. This book does take a darker tone as it closes as it's sad to watch the total collapse of the "hero's" social identity--at least as he thinks of it--but as someone who struggles with the shame of social awkwardness, I found something deeply therapeutic in vicariously living through Mr. Golyadkin's social apocalypse of obsessive antics. Thanks for reviewing this book and making this place where we can share our thoughts on it!

Thank you for your review, and I can relate to many of your reactions. But for the record (re: 2:00)...there is no murder plot in the book. Rather, at the end of chapter two, Golyadkin has a somewhat cryptic conversation with his doctor which makes reference to a "moral murder"--i.e., the assassination of his character by vicious rumors. It's a pretty critical conversation, which sets the stage for his motivations in the early part of the novel, but it's also a tricky one to follow, in part due to Golyadkin's tendency to speak of himself in the third person. That "moral murder" plot isn't left dangling, either, but is picked up again later.

The movie adaptation is a lot like fight club. It's worth a watch. I think in the novel that his double only exists in his head. He obsesses so much about 'fitting in' or having the 'secret', looking in the mirror as well, so starts to see himself everywhere behaving and being treated like he wishes to but it backfires on him. He imagines being different so much that he creates something in his mind and starts to believe it.

i read the double as my 4th dostoyevsky novel, and i like this book a lot. the way mr golyadkin constantly questions himself, although staying overly positive throughout the book is quite remarkably conveyed. its very funny how most of dostoyevsky's main characters either see themselves as flawless and respectable or they are depressed (or both). makes me question dostoyevskys mental health....

A haunting story about a man losing his mind but also at times- hilarious. Wonderful, twisted book

I read The Double and loved it! It is a real journey into the psyche of a schizophrenic. I particularly line the part when our hero is walking alone at midnight along the Fontanka canal in St. Petersburg. That is where he first encounters his double who torments him. I really pitied our hero and genuinely felt his psychic agony which Dostoevsky brilliantly portrays.

Hey! I think you did a very good job summing up and explaining the book. I am actually from Russia, so Dostoyevsky is one of the most important authors both in my school literature program and in my life. It was weirdly satisfactory to see you read this book and try to get into this story. I am sure that for someone from a foreign country it must be twice as hard and confusing. Dostoyevsky is difficult to read even to the native speakers. His language is quite complicated and heavy, though breathtakingly beautiful once you get into it. There is an interesting theory among the Russian readers that depending on your personality you would either find yourself close to Dostoyevsky or to Leo Tolstoy. You can like them both, but you can only associate your life and your thoughts either with Dostoyevsky's or Tolstoy's prose. I am Dostoyevsky all the way. :) This makes me wonder if you've read anything by Leo Tolstoy and (if so) where would you place yourself? Tolstoy? Dostoyevsky?

I found myself having to go back and read the previous paragraph because the story just jumps into situations or conversations without any set up and you end up questioning how did we get here.

hero=protagonist

I really enjoyed your thoughts on this book. To your point about the difficulty of reading Russian literature, I have found that listening to audiobooks helps immensely, although it feels like cheating. The narrators will switch between characters by voice intonation making it easier to follow which character is speaking

I've read it, and as far as I remember he met his double after making a sexual gesture to unknown woman. In the end he was accused of doing something horrible. As far as I remember. I though it tied up to the 'hero" having to face the fact that he's a pervert and a loser. The double is basically just him as he's seen by others, and the protagonist as he sees himself. Literal meaning, as in what happens in the story, isn't that important.

I think you would enjoy other Dostoevsky books a lot more. This was one of his earlier works and he was still trying to find his voice, so a lot of ambitious things were attempted but they didn't quite work as well in the execution as his more mature novels.

this was a relief, I thought I was the only one having such a hard time following the plot in this book, in fact the near end confused me quite a lot, the way the protagonist dealt with people and right after that started narrating his own thoughts; made me dizzy. nonetheless I enjoyed how his social disfunctions and personal stress was so detailed, like an exageration of common situations turned awfully wrong, mostly in his head.

My first thoughts were, this is a terrible translation. I checked other editions to be sure. The man has only about 10% grasp on reality. It's a hard read at first, but you get used to his insanity after a while. You did a great review of it. Thank you for the video.

Good job! Yes, your review makes me want to read the Double. And I appreciate your enthusiasm and honesty. Sounds like an amazing read.

Golyadkin constantly being confused and nervously changing his mind all the time is just to signify his nervousness. A lot of characters in Dostoevski act this way.

Do you think the book was slow or fast paced? It just felt slow to me in terms of me trying to understand things like the 9th century society that he lives in and what those Russian terms were (which i googled after I finished a chapter to get a good picture).

Do you like existentialism? and do you plan on making any videos on Camus or Sartre? Just subbed too, I think you do great job on concise explanations on themes and characters. Plus your taste in literature crosses over with mine.

About that "hero"... I found it to be simply breaking the fourth wall rather than a contribution to the description of Mr Golyadkin... In the Polish language the protagonist is called (a direct translation) a hero. There is a main/primary "hero"; there are secondary "hereos"... Therefore it could be a direct translation from Russian, IF a protagonist in Russian is also called a hero. But is it? Dear Russians, I would be grateful if you could clarify this one for me.

Golyadkin is deeply disliked by his peers, but the man lacks self-awareness. It's not until he is exposed to himself, literally, that he begins to understand who he was and where he stands in society. Golyadkin is over sensitive, insecure, cowardly, and has a low opinion of himself; but he gaslights himself into thinking that he's "all right" and that it is everyone else who are bad- his"enemies." I find The Double to be very relatable since we all know a Golyadkin, and I think Dostoevsky wanted to explore the psychology of someone like this, and what would happen if they were forced to deal with themselves.

Chareads I find that the “naming issue” you describe was not really an issue to me at all Chareads, I found reading aloud helped following the plot Chareads. Try reading it aloud Chareads. Chareads, I don’t think it is SciFi it probably more like physiological drama Chareads.

I've just started this (audio) book, after listening to Notes from the Underground. Twice - once for initial exposure and again to engage with the philosophy and narrative. Maybe listen to The Double on a long drive or as your work (if that's allowed) and try to pick up on the nuances you missed? Thanks for your review, BTW. I try to get a feel for new books early in my reading/listening and I guess this one will be a bit challenging (like NftU) too.

You can put your book down.

Yeah I was listening to this and like a minute into this review I was like "wow sounds like crime & punishment..." just bc Raskolnikov was so crazy, couldn't seem to make up his mind, everyone's name was so confusing/sounded the same/had several names. Plus I had no idea about the time period/setting so I definitely see where you're coming from.

With the lesser works of Dostoyevsky, this in particular and Poor Folk, i too sense that we are really in a linguistic bottleneck, even with the best english translations. For me it was very repetitive at times, but i could feel the constant suffering, anxiety of Golyadkin and ultimate the total horror; very immersive. Must be also the theatrical aspect of the character that it made me think more of a creative composition, ambient in nature like music, more than a traditional well written story.

The online book that I read by this author is Crime and Punishment, as it's on the list of books that you need to read in Poland in secondary school (15-19yo) very important in regards Leaving Cert, very dark, analysing humans behaviour etc - if THE DOUBLE is quite the same I am to scared to read it :) PS. Referring to someone by name was very normal those days, each person had few names but as you would inherit your father name as your second one adding -a (please correct me if I'm wrong)

where my class at?

Cheers from Russians viewers! If you want to read something else from Russian lit, check out works or Pushkin, Lermontov or Bulgakov. They're easier to read, but no less interesting than Dostoyevsky. Btw, about names: we have just first and second name and what in Europe considers to be a middle name (I'm not sure about the term, sorry) in Russia just a name of person's father and it is commonly used to express politeness. Your reviews are amazing! Looking forward to the next:3

I'm from Brazil and it has been a long time since I've read this book. I just really wanted to talk to someone about it. And I find it crazy that this is the only video I could find on RU-vid on this amazing book.

Least favourite Dostoyevsky book.

Something similar in regards surnames :) good review

I read this last month along with Notes from Underground, and gave it the same star rating as you. I just found it quite difficult to read, and the name thing drove me nuts haha! I prefer the adaptation just because there was more to the plot and it was more interesting, at least for me personally. But then, I don't know if I would have felt the same had I read it first!

I liked the film a lot. It was a bit crazy, but I think it was done well. I have never read the book though, maybe one day. I have read a few Russian authors and they do use 6 names for each character a lot.

Exactly how I felt haha. Nice one 👌

Hero has the same meaning as protagonist in Serbian, Russian etc.

Just finished it..a hard read..

😂😂😂 the naming makes every Dostoevsky novel a mess when it comes to keeping track of what is done and said to who and whom.

I really liked the movie. Definitely more accessible than the book and loved the performances. The setting was also really well done.

Nice review! !

"The Idiot" is still my favourite.