z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
The Brilliance of The Double: Why Don’t Critics Understand Dostoevsky?
Author(s) -
Vladimir Zakharov
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
neizvestnyj dostoevskij
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2409-5788
DOI - 10.15393/j9.art.2020.4941
Subject(s) - literature , plot (graphics) , philosophy , psychoanalysis , psychology , art , mathematics , statistics
In the euphoria of the success of Poor Folk Dostoevsky wrote an inventive work — a fantastical novel with an absurd plot, in which two completely similar characters act: two Yakov, two Petroviches, two Golyadkins, two titular councilors serving in the same department. Their similarity is not explained in any way. According to the author, this is “a completely inexplicable incident,” however, critics keep trying to explain the appearance of the double. The range of interpretations is extensive — from the rationalistic and empirical rejection of fantastika to numerous psychopathological, ethical, social and other concepts of it. They have the same status: they are all nontextual readings of the work. Critics do not read Dostoevsky, rather, they compose their own version of The Double. It all started with Belinsky, who made factual errors in the analysis of The Double. Dobrolyubov frankly admitted that his explanation of the double was formed “while thumbing through” the story. All subsequent interpretations are variations of their explanations of fantastika. Dostoevsky was sensitive to the misunderstanding of readers and critics. In 1862 and 1864, he created drafts with the aim of revising The Double. Unable to carry out this plan, in September 1866 Dostoevsky cut down the magazine’s editorial staff and made other changes that polemically opposed the interpretations of Belinsky and Dobrolyubov. The analysis of the two editions of The Double and the materials in the 1862-1864 notebooks (Russian State Library. F. 93.I.2.6 and 93.I.2.7) demonstrate that Dostoevsky did not think of The Double as a ghost, hallucination, or the delirium of a madman, but, rather, considered him a real character in the story. Denying the similarity and protesting against the immorality of the younger Golyadkin, the elder proclaims: man is unique. This idea was a development of the anthropological principle that Dostoevsky discovered in Poor Folk and later vividly expressed in Notes from the Underground.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here