<b>this collection translated by: Jessie Coulson</b>
<i><b>The Gambler  --> 3.5/5</b></i>
<i>"I had a strange, mad idea that I should be certain to win at roulette here. Why I had this idea, I don't know, but I believed it. Who knows, perhaps I believed it because I had no choice -- there was nothing else left." </i> p.44

'The Gambler' occupies a strange place in the Dostoevsky line-up. It was written under financial duress in the same year he'd go on to publish 'Crime and Punishment' and in a lot of ways, the pushed-out nature of the novella is fairly obvious. 

Though the central exploration of gambling does remain the focus of the narrative, there are many, many times when (likely to push up the word count) Dostoevsky descends into xenophobic tirades about Germans, the English, but most often, the French. Much of this material would be familiar to anyone who has read 'Winter Notes on Summer Impressions,' a series of essays he wrote following an extended trip to Europe that seems to have really lit the flame of his mistrust of The West. Granted, there was real reason for some of his vitriol, but even punching up is often mean-spirited, and it gets a bit tiresome by the end of the story. 

Another bad habit he indulges in 'The Gambler' is his shallow writing of women, particularly young women. Nothing distinguishes this love interest from, say, the love interest in 'Uncle's Dream.' Polina is just another bitchy, self-serving woman who friend-zones the protagonist and is downright cruel to him, readily taking advantage of his love for her and in the end never reciprocating his feelings. He even manages to cross-list this limp characterization with his hatred of the French by having her fall in love with a ne'er do well French opportunist and scathingly adding at the end that Russian young ladies are particularly susceptible to the vapid charm of Frenchmen. 

<i>Yawn. </i>

That being said, easily the most interesting character is Grandmama, who represents the only type of woman Dostoevsky up until this point has ever been able to write successfully: old ladies with tornado personalities. These sections with Grandmama brought much needed life to an otherwise lackluster tale, and she provides some excellent comedic moments of brash commentary as her lack of inhibition and tidal-wave of chatter washes over everyone she comes in contact with: 

"You're very pretty. I should fall in love with you if I were a young man. Why don't you get married? However, it's time I went." ... "Are you ashamed of being with me, eh? Stay at home then; nobody's asked you to come." (p.80, 85)

Grandmama is the other character for whom gambling becomes a problem, and Dostoevsky does a great job pointing out that the addiction can sneak up on anyone, whether young or old, rich or poor, and regardless of whether or not a person knows better. However, he does make it clear that the consequences impact different people very differently. 

His commentary on the nature of gambling addiction, the logic by which gamblers justify returning to their game of chance of choice even after it has demonstrably ruined their lives is easily the most worthwhile aspect of the novella, and was likely drawing on his own struggles with gambling. Right near the end of the novella, when the protagonist has hit rock bottom, he admits that his desperation for money has now gotten mixed up with the thrill itself of the moments of possibility before he finds out whether he's won or lost: "When, on my way to the gaming room, I hear from two rooms away the chink of the coins pouring out of the scoops, I am thrown into a ferment [...] Yes, in such moments one forgets all one's previous failures. I had got this, you see, at the risk of more than life, I had dared to run the risk -- and now I was a man again!" (p.155) 

There's definitely something to be said of the several times he equates success or failure at the roulette table to either succeeding or failing as a man, and there's an implication that 'being a man' is the psychological driver that lead to the gambling; if he had more money, he'd be a real man. If he were a real man, he'd get the girl. But then, when he does have the money, the girl he attracts is a gold digger who, though she seemingly does really care about him, nevertheless robs him blind and ironically only comes to value him once she realizes he doesn't care about the money. 

So, he leaves men with a real catch-22: you're not a real man if you don't have money, and women won't want you unless you have it. But once you have money, the only women you can get just want the money. They're only interested in you as a person if you don't have money, but then they'll only view you as a friend. Or something like that. 

It's sad, really. And it again speaks to the type of male reader that reads stories like this and sees a reflection of their own bitterness that then leads them to either nihilistic inceldom or the 'red-pilled' manosphere, or both. 

And I feel for them, I do; under patriarchy, the pressure on men to secure financial success in order to be considered valuable is immense, and has existed at least since this was published in the 1860s. However, but, and also, that doesn't make it true. And I think a lot of straight men (and probably some queer men too) would be much happier if they realized how artificial that definition of successful manhood is. And it's certainly not the thing that is going to lead most men (certainly not most women) to mutually loving, equitable, happy relationships. 

Just saying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<i><b> A Nasty Story  --> 4.5/5</b></i> 
<i>"What is heroism? - this. Consider: given the present relations between all classes of society, for me, me, to go to the wedding festivities of my subordinate [...] is to cause confusion, turn all ideas topsy-turvy, create a chaos like the last days of Pompeii! Nobody will understand it. Stepan Nikiforovich will die without understanding it. It was he who said we shan't be able to stand it, you know. Yes, but that's you, old man, victim of paralysis and stagnation, but I-will-stand-it!"</i> p.196

This is basically just Dostoevsky having fun ragging on performative, self-centered Liberalism (derogatory), and as a Leftist I lived for it. 

The plot is incredibly simple but effective. Protagonist Ivan Ilych (not to be confused with the poor fellow in Tolstoy's novella) is hanging out with some of his older acquaintances of equal social standing, and he starts talking about how social change is good, actually, and they're being stuffy if they disagree. As he's taking his leave, he discovers that his coachman has gone off with the carriage and not returned back yet. Ivan Ilych gets super annoyed and decides to walk home even though he's a little bit tipsy. On the way, he comes upon the wedding party of one of his subordinates and decides to gate crash specifically so he can espouse his understanding of how people like them really are just the same as someone like himself, and to get them to praise him for being an ally of the people. 

He has a vivid fantasy of everyone at the wedding fawning over this bravery on his part, and for lowering himself to attend a lowly poor wedding and grace such poor folk as themselves with his presence when surely he could be off rubbing shoulders with his own kind. 

It does not, needless to say, turn out quite as he'd pictured. 

Not only is he very obviously an unwanted guest, the fact that propriety dictates the Groom and everyone else must nevertheless treat him with deference and respect makes everything even more awkward. To cover his embarrassment at having wildly misjudged how him showing up uninvited would go and that no one is interested in hearing his little speech (and indeed that the little speech was actually pretty stupid), Ivan Ilych gets progressively more drunk, and basically ruins this guy's wedding and inconveniences everyone in the household after he gets sick and passes out. 

Afterwards, he's so embarrassed about the whole thing that he decides his older friends were right and that as far as the classes are concerned, it's a ne'er the twain shall meet type situation. 

It's deeply funny, but should be avoided by anyone who suffers from second-hand embarrassment because boy let me tell you: there's a lot of it. 

Liberal-hating conservatives will enjoy this because the humor leans on the hypocrisy of elitist Liberals they love braying about. Leftists will also love this for that reason, but from the Left. If you know, you know. And if you don't know 'A Nasty Story' is an excellent gateway. 

Near pitch-perfect slice of life and lighthearted but pointed social commentary from my man, Fedya.