The narrator’s standpoint in the short novel, The Double, by Fyodor Dostoevsky is an unorthodox yet effective literary tool used by the author in order to further bring the audience into the many layers of this work of literature. The narration is done in the third person, but it is limited to the views of the main character, Mr. Golyadkin. It is as though this third person narrator is being drawn into an almost first person narration throughout the story; a sort of third person monologue. A since it is limited to the views of the protagonist, who is mentally unstable, the narrator himself is unreliable. The audience can never place their full trust in the narrator to accurately depict the events that are occurring in the concrete world of the novel. However, that brings the reader further into the work because one of the many themes that could be discussed in this novel is how does one define reality. This narrative technique not only raises such questions once the reader realizes what is going on over half way through the novel, but also because of that it may require the reader to leaf back through the pages to pick up on clues and subtleties from earlier on. There are many instances within the actual text that illustrate these points more clearly.
The narration starts off cleanly enough, passing itself off as a normal third person limited. This can be seen in the opening chapters, which provide basic exposition, where the daily routines, thoughts, and actions of Mr. Golyadkin are described for the audience. Nothing unusual is seen in the narration at this point. However, as the story goes on, the narrator becomes less and less reliable to the audience. The narration seems to be tainted by the very madness that taints Golyadkin himself. It becomes very confusing at points to know what is going on, to know what is real. By chapter six and seven, the audience finds itself mixed within a shroud of apparent plot contradictions. The events of the world in the narrators and Golyadkin’s minds do not seem to match up with the minds of the rest of the world. Golyadkin brings home his ‘friend’ and he expects his servant Petrushka to be quite shocked that he has brought home such an eerily similar house guest, but the text shows us a different perception by the servant, “But to his great astonishment his servant showed no surprise-quite the reverse, as if he had been expecting something of the sort.” (56) So far in this story, the audience was to believe that whatever the narrator said was the truth. So why would the introduction of a virtual clone as a guest not astonish a servant, but rather meet his expectations? This is an instance where the audience can soundly say that the narrator is unreliable.
So then what good is an unreliable narrator? Well in this particular story the unreliable narrator provides a much more unique take on the telling of a mad man’s story. Broken speech patterns are a notable element of this narration. In earlier chapters of this novel, it said that Golyadkin is often upset at the insubordination of Petrushka for using improper language around him, in the sense that he does not use the respectful language that a servant should use towards his master. Later on in the short novel we see that Petrushka uses words such as “sir” almost in over abundance. It can be assumed that this change is brought on because Golyadkin’s “double” has caused this change during scenes not depicted by the unreliable narration. I further this assumption with the theory that part of the reason as to why Golyadkin’s double manifested itself was because Golyadkin was unhappy with who he was, so his more assertive and roguish alter-ego lived a life he both detested and envied. Having the audacity to correct his servant’s speech would be one of the actions only the alter-ego could perform. This is not however left relatively ambiguous since the narration does not outright say that such events occur, nor does it officially state why the schizophrenic change occurred.
Due to this ambiguity of the narration, a shroud of uncertainty it placed around the purpose and meaning behind many of the plotline components. We as the audience never see many of the “off page” events that should have been seen since they later effect scenes that we do see, providing the shroud of uncertainty. This uncertainty allows for plenty of room for the reader to conclude for themselves what the reasons are for this psychological metamorphosis, which is very effective from a literary standpoint. What would normally be seen as incomplete story telling now provides a much more complete work of literature.
The shroud of mystery becomes more and clearer s these apparent contradictions, such as the breaking in speech patterns from secondary characters, become more and more obvious. The clues become easier to spot, and the reader finally becomes aware that there is no actual double but rather it is just a figment inside the distorted mind of the protagonist. This also makes the reader realize the purpose in the unreliable narration.
The style of narration used in this story raises interesting philosophical questions, one of them being: What is reality? We see how there can be different views of reality all existing and interacting with one another in a seemingly paradoxical way in this story. The events that occur in the mind of Golyadkin are not the events that happen concretely in the novel’s universe, while Golyadkin thinks he is outside of the party looking in at his double he actually spent some time in the party. Both of these events are impossible to take place at the same time, unless reality is just relative to the individual. This I believe is Dostoevsky’s answer to that philosophical question. Reality is relative to the individual, just as the speed and distance of light is relative to the observer due to space and time.
There were many Golyadkins actually. There was the Golyadkin that existed in the mind of Golyadkin, the one inside the mind of Petrushka, the Golyadkin that manifested itself out of subconscious ego, and the Golyadkins that came from the perceptions of all other acquaintances and passerbys. All of these Golyadkins affected how all of these people interacted with one another, because we often act according to how we perceive one individual to be. All of these Golyadkins are real and only some are actually tangible, yet their existences are justified by the different relative viewpoints of everyone involved. The actions of the tangible Golyadkin are affected by his interactions with other people, whose actions were based upon their perceptions of themselves and of Golyadkin, thus making them all interdependent of one another. So my gut feeling tells me that this is the message being sent by Dostoevsky. At the very least, it is what I interpret.
