I would first like to say that I enjoyed Justin's interpretation of the Double's first appearance. I also think Petar is right to bring up the reality-bending nature of the story of The Double. I would just like to make a case for the stance that nothing in the story is actually happens the way the narrator tells it. I do not mean that the narrator is "wrong," I just mean that it is more likely that Golyadkin dreamed all of this than that it actually happened in any real sense. First of all, nobody seems to notice that one day there was only one Golyadkin in the office, and the next day, there are two identical versions, both with the exact same names. In fact, when Golyadkin Sr. is talking about it to Anton Antonovitch, it is as if he just notices for the first time that there is suddenly an exact replica of his coworker. The morning after Sr./Jr. drank together, Sr. wakes up and asks Petrovich where Jr. went: "Petrushka made no reply, but he gave Mr. Golyadkin such a look that the latter crimsoned to his ears--looked at him with an insulting reproachfulness almost equivalent to open abuse. Mr. Golyadkin was utterly flabbergasted, as the saying is. At last Petrsuhka explained that the _other one_ had gone away an hour and a half ago, and would not wait" (p. 57). Petrushka seems to regard Golyadkin's question as reproachful, enough at least to look at him like he's a lunatic. It is also extremely strange that after Petrushka says this, Sr. meets Jr. in his apartment. Jr. looks to be in a hurry; why would he be back at Sr.'s apartment after he left if he is on some special commission? I think that while it is obvious that the narrator is not telling us the "real" story, it is important, contrary to Solomon's opinion, that we recognize the difference between the different kinds of "reality" that pop up in The Double. After all, one of the important reasons for literature is to inform of the human condition. I think that a literal reading of this book versus the reading I suggest is mainly that they lead to different interpretations of the same events. I believe most of the analysis of The Double in class arises from the common assumption that there is not _really_ a second Golyadkin. It is merely a metaphor.
Petrushka was brought up in several discussions in class, but I felt his significance was slightly overlooked. There is a Russian ballet called Petrushka. In the ballet Petrushka is a straw puppet who is made fun of and laughed at - but develops from just a mockery into a tragedy when he falls in love with a ballerina. Forever imprisoned by the charlatan he loses his love to another puppet who later slays him. The charlatan is questioned about the murder, but he reminds everyone that Petrushka is just a puppet. Its a very sad, but somewhat charming story and I couldn't help but relate the ballet story of Petrushka to Dostoevsky's Petrushka. Both live lives of servitude. The ballet was choreographed after Dostoevsky's book, but maybe Petrushka is a stock Russian character that Dostoevsky chose to include this character in this story. Furthermore, I think there is significance in Petrushka's dramatic mood change when the Double appears. For being so belittled in the beginning of the text he seemed to recognize the Double as a his master's harbinger of doom. I also wondered about the significance of Petrushka being an alcoholic. It was mentioned so many times in the text. Why was this aspect of his character important enough to mention several times?
I thought both Joe and Lauren did a very good job of relating material from the second half of The Double to some of the larger themes we've been talking about in class, particularly with reference to the issue of Golyadkin's paranoia/his place in society, questions about the Double's relationship with Golyadkin and other characters, and the novel's representation(s) of reality generally. Joe gave us a really interesting and diverse basis for starting off, and I thought Lauren's remarks provided a nice transition to focusing our discussion on a few main points.
I found the point that Joe brought up about religious imagery to be the most compelling, specifically the idea that Golyadkin is in fact dead and in his own personal Hell for the duration of The Double. We noted the repetition of the phrase "more alive than dead" in the first day of discussion, and that phrase appeared at least once or twice in the second half of the novel as well. Along with Krestyan Ivanovitch's appearance at the end (in which he is described as having "fiery eyes" glittering with a "hellish glee"), one short passage that stood out to me was Golyadkin's awakening from his dreams (on page 87):
"At last Mr. Golyadkin could endure it no longer. 'This shall not be!' he cried, resolutely sitting up in bed, and after this exclamation he felt fully awake."
I did not notice this at first, but it really struck me after our discussion that Golyadkin only felt fully awake (i.e. "alive" or "real") after saying "This shall not be!" Golyadkin is only made to feel "real" through a statement of non-being; in other words, what awakes Golyadkin from his sleeping state is not reality or being, but fundamental non-existence, or what we might term "death." I think this is just one of a large number of examples (many of which we brought up in class) that support the notion that Golyadkin is either dead, dreaming, or otherwise not actually experiencing "reality" as we understand the term.
A few other open questions to leave everybody with:
We talked on the first day about the effect/role of the narrator, specifically in regards to his/her extensive first-person digression in Chapter IV. However, this issue didn't really come up in the second half of The Double, at least not explicitly. Having completed the novel, what do we make of the narrator's role? Can we trust him/her as an impartial observer, or is our version of the novel compromised by the narrator's relationship (whatever it may be) to Golyadkin, the "hero" of this story?
I'd be interested in any information about any traditional Russian cultural mythology concerning the meaning/significance of twins. Many societies throughout history have exhibited some sort of belief about the "supernaturality," both positive and negative, of identical twins: in medieval Europe, for example, women who bore twins could be accused of cohabiting with the devil and burned at the stake, while some Native American tribes considered twins lucky supernatural beings from another world and treated them with reverence. I wasn't able to find anything about traditional Russian beliefs regarding twins by doing a few Google searches, but if Prof. Armstrong or anyone else can come up with something I think it could potentially shed some more light on many the themes we discussed in class.
I would first like to say that I enjoyed Justin's interpretation of the Double's first appearance. I also think Petar is right to bring up the reality-bending nature of the story of The Double. I would just like to make a case for the stance that nothing in the story is actually happens the way the narrator tells it. I do not mean that the narrator is "wrong," I just mean that it is more likely that Golyadkin dreamed all of this than that it actually happened in any real sense. First of all, nobody seems to notice that one day there was only one Golyadkin in the office, and the next day, there are two identical versions, both with the exact same names. In fact, when Golyadkin Sr. is talking about it to Anton Antonovitch, it is as if he just notices for the first time that there is suddenly an exact replica of his coworker. The morning after Sr./Jr. drank together, Sr. wakes up and asks Petrovich where Jr. went:
ReplyDelete"Petrushka made no reply, but he gave Mr. Golyadkin such a look that the latter crimsoned to his ears--looked at him with an insulting reproachfulness almost equivalent to open abuse. Mr. Golyadkin was utterly flabbergasted, as the saying is. At last Petrsuhka explained that the _other one_ had gone away an hour and a half ago, and would not wait" (p. 57).
Petrushka seems to regard Golyadkin's question as reproachful, enough at least to look at him like he's a lunatic. It is also extremely strange that after Petrushka says this, Sr. meets Jr. in his apartment. Jr. looks to be in a hurry; why would he be back at Sr.'s apartment after he left if he is on some special commission?
I think that while it is obvious that the narrator is not telling us the "real" story, it is important, contrary to Solomon's opinion, that we recognize the difference between the different kinds of "reality" that pop up in The Double. After all, one of the important reasons for literature is to inform of the human condition. I think that a literal reading of this book versus the reading I suggest is mainly that they lead to different interpretations of the same events. I believe most of the analysis of The Double in class arises from the common assumption that there is not _really_ a second Golyadkin. It is merely a metaphor.
Petrushka was brought up in several discussions in class, but I felt his significance was slightly overlooked. There is a Russian ballet called Petrushka. In the ballet Petrushka is a straw puppet who is made fun of and laughed at - but develops from just a mockery into a tragedy when he falls in love with a ballerina. Forever imprisoned by the charlatan he loses his love to another puppet who later slays him. The charlatan is questioned about the murder, but he reminds everyone that Petrushka is just a puppet. Its a very sad, but somewhat charming story and I couldn't help but relate the ballet story of Petrushka to Dostoevsky's Petrushka. Both live lives of servitude. The ballet was choreographed after Dostoevsky's book, but maybe Petrushka is a stock Russian character that Dostoevsky chose to include this character in this story. Furthermore, I think there is significance in Petrushka's dramatic mood change when the Double appears. For being so belittled in the beginning of the text he seemed to recognize the Double as a his master's harbinger of doom. I also wondered about the significance of Petrushka being an alcoholic. It was mentioned so many times in the text. Why was this aspect of his character important enough to mention several times?
ReplyDeleteI thought both Joe and Lauren did a very good job of relating material from the second half of The Double to some of the larger themes we've been talking about in class, particularly with reference to the issue of Golyadkin's paranoia/his place in society, questions about the Double's relationship with Golyadkin and other characters, and the novel's representation(s) of reality generally. Joe gave us a really interesting and diverse basis for starting off, and I thought Lauren's remarks provided a nice transition to focusing our discussion on a few main points.
ReplyDeleteI found the point that Joe brought up about religious imagery to be the most compelling, specifically the idea that Golyadkin is in fact dead and in his own personal Hell for the duration of The Double. We noted the repetition of the phrase "more alive than dead" in the first day of discussion, and that phrase appeared at least once or twice in the second half of the novel as well. Along with Krestyan Ivanovitch's appearance at the end (in which he is described as having "fiery eyes" glittering with a "hellish glee"), one short passage that stood out to me was Golyadkin's awakening from his dreams (on page 87):
"At last Mr. Golyadkin could endure it no longer. 'This shall not be!' he cried, resolutely sitting up in bed, and after this exclamation he felt fully awake."
I did not notice this at first, but it really struck me after our discussion that Golyadkin only felt fully awake (i.e. "alive" or "real") after saying "This shall not be!" Golyadkin is only made to feel "real" through a statement of non-being; in other words, what awakes Golyadkin from his sleeping state is not reality or being, but fundamental non-existence, or what we might term "death." I think this is just one of a large number of examples (many of which we brought up in class) that support the notion that Golyadkin is either dead, dreaming, or otherwise not actually experiencing "reality" as we understand the term.
A few other open questions to leave everybody with:
We talked on the first day about the effect/role of the narrator, specifically in regards to his/her extensive first-person digression in Chapter IV. However, this issue didn't really come up in the second half of The Double, at least not explicitly. Having completed the novel, what do we make of the narrator's role? Can we trust him/her as an impartial observer, or is our version of the novel compromised by the narrator's relationship (whatever it may be) to Golyadkin, the "hero" of this story?
I'd be interested in any information about any traditional Russian cultural mythology concerning the meaning/significance of twins. Many societies throughout history have exhibited some sort of belief about the "supernaturality," both positive and negative, of identical twins: in medieval Europe, for example, women who bore twins could be accused of cohabiting with the devil and burned at the stake, while some Native American tribes considered twins lucky supernatural beings from another world and treated them with reverence. I wasn't able to find anything about traditional Russian beliefs regarding twins by doing a few Google searches, but if Prof. Armstrong or anyone else can come up with something I think it could potentially shed some more light on many the themes we discussed in class.