Jekyll and Hyde: The Unreliable Narrator in Notes from the Underground and Crime & Punishment If history was to consider the greatest psychologist in world literature, Fyodor Dostoevsky would surely be one of the names to claim such standing. Writing in one language, yet speaking to all countries, Dostoevsky redefined what it meant to be a novelist. Using the pen as a surgical knife, Dostoevsky dissected the human psyche in methods unprecedented in the medium prior. One of the most striking methods is his use of the unreliable narrator. In both Notes from the Underground and Crime & Punishment, the unreliable narrator is predominately revealed through the narrator’s polemics with supporting characters, and also in their own indecision. For the reader, as we read these torn characters battle against their own conscious, we are forced to question our own rooted morality and experience values beyond our moral boundaries. Through the utilization of this complex device, Dostoevsky is also highlighting the devastating social state of his protagonists, a state wrought upon them by a society that marginalizes the indecisive. The implementation of the unreliable narrator is one of the rare devices that affects the reader as much as it effects the character. It strikes the perfect balance. The execution of an unreliable narrator is a tricky thing, indeed. If everything espoused is clouded in so much uncertainty that the reader is unable to differentiate opinion from fact, the point of utilizing an unreliable narrator is missed. One of the great strengths of utilizing this perspective is to tell a narrative subjectively, yet objective enough for the reader to extrapolate their own meaning and understanding of the narrative separated from the subjective narrator. In Notes from the Underground, Dostoevsky presents a nameless protagonist, the Underground Man, who has receded from the world due to his social ineptness. Yet for all his mutterings of self-destruction and contempt for society, he remains transparent enough for the reader to separate his subjective thoughts from the objective truths. The best way Dostoevsky achieves this is by taking the reader through a scene objectively, allowing the reader to garner one interpretation, and then presenting a subjective response soon after by the unreliable narrator. A prime example of this is when the Underground Man meets Liza, a simple prostitute, and invites her to his house one afternoon. Upon immediately attending, she is offered tea by the Underground Man. She initially refuses, yet moments later our narrator has brought out a kettle and cup and is pouring tea for her. What was objectively presented to us as a simple answer isn’t registered by our unreliable narrator, who has a habit of interpreting things oppositely. And when 2 he realizes that she’s not touching her tea, he screams ‘drink your tea!’1 This is soon followed by the line, ‘a terrible anger against her suddenly welled up in my heart; I think I could’ve killed her’.2 From such a minute exchange, a scathing and ruthless reaction has been triggered. Through this dichotomy of the objective and subjective a greater understanding of our troubled protagonist comes to light. What the reader would interpret as a normal response from Liza, the Underground Man twists into a response that attacks his magnanimity, and in turn, character. His unreliability is assured. In Crime & Punishment, Dostoevsky also incorporates the subjective versus the objective in developing the unreliable narrator. Early in the novel, our protagonist, Raskolnikov, is found to be in dire straits. Financially drained and mentally tormented, he begins doubting his self- worth. He suddenly receives a letter from his mother living miles away from St. Petersburg. Within it, she details the trials and tribulations of herself and his sister, Dunya. They too are undergoing ‘monthly deductions from salary’ and enduring ‘all these painful details’.3 In an effort to reconcile their dismal state, a marriage is arranged between Dunya and the profitable lawyer, Pyotr Luzhin. Raskolnikov’s mother expresses great excitement and optimism in this prospect, calling Luzhin a ‘trusty and well-do man’ and predicts Dunya will regard it as ‘her duty to constitute the happiness of her husband, who in his turn will care about hers’.4 She then tells Raskolnikov how it might affect him directly. With Luzhin opening an attorney’s office in St. Petersburg, Raskolnikov’s current city of residence, the prospect for her ailing son to attain a career under the tutelage of Luzhin is an option she hopes her son will pursue. She even goes on to state, ‘our fervent hope [is] that he will help us to supply you with money while you’re still in university’.5 Now because the letter is presented verbatim to the reader, we are objectively able to make our own assessment of his mother. She appears to be a selfless, honest and good-natured woman, simply looking out for the best intentions of her son. Yet that assessment is quickly disputed by a subjective response from Raskolnikov that takes the polar opposite interpretation. He instantly replies, ‘No, mother, no, Dunya, you won’t fool me!’6 In his eyes, the marriage exemplifies his lack of self-worth. So incapable he is to his family that they have to rely on an 1 Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from the Underground, (New York: Critical, 2001), p. 84. 2 Ibid., p.84. 3 Fyodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, (New York: Penguin, 1991), p. 63. 4 Ibid, p. 68-69. 5 Ibid., p. 71. 6 Ibid., p. 74. 3 external masculine figure to ensure their well-being. He asks himself, ‘what can you promise them instead…What are you doing now? Robbing them’.7 He feels parasitic towards them, and this new maneuvering of marriage completely undermines his worth and only furthers his anxiety. For the reader, it gives an accurate assessment of our protagonist’s tumultuous state of mind and unreliability in observation. He is manipulating his mother’s intentions as a result of his unstable conscience. Once again, in another text by Dostoevsky, we are seeing the same concept brought forth: presentation of an objective scenario, followed by a subjective reading. The result is identical in both works: a narrator who can’t be trusted. While the two protagonists’ experience with the outside world exemplifies the unreliability in accurately interpreting situations, we also find unreliability in their own internal logic. With the Underground Man, time and time again, we read as he alternates his opinion on almost every subject. Even the very first line of the novel has connotations of indecisiveness. He writes, ‘I am a sick man…I am a spiteful man’.8 What begins as a sentence of sympathy is soon followed by an ellipsis which changes the tone to a statement of resentment. It’s almost as if the Underground Man is reflecting his own internal duality via the juxtaposition of these two sentences. The confliction of opinion that is apparent in this opening line is a quality that runs through the entire narrative. And as we navigate through his shaky consciousness, we are forced to question everything he says, for in one paragraph he might reinforce a point only to dismantle it pages later. He is a man unable to make up his mind, and therefore we can make little of him. With Crime & Punishment, the same unreliability that pervades the Underground Man is found to plague Raskolnikov as well. While walking through the streets of St. Petersburg, Raskolnikov encounters a drunken young lady being pursued by an older man wishing to take advantage of her. Our protagonist initially feels great remorse for her and chastises the man for trying to exploit the girl in such an unruly fashion. He even goes to the length of calling upon a passing officer and asks, ‘are we just going to let him get his hands on her? Aren’t we going to try to fetch her home? Think about it!’9 His empathy is palpable, yet just as we begin to attribute good morals to Raskolnikov, his attitude suddenly shifts. He begins to feel regret for intruding in someone else’s affair. Not only does he wish to have nothing to do with her, he claims, ‘Oh, they 7 Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, p. 78. 8 Dostoevsky, Notes from the Underground, p. 3. 9 Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, p. 82. 4 can swallow each other for all I care’.10 Just like the Underground Man, Raskolnikov’s perception is transformed as quickly as it is developed. While the incident with the girl is ultimately inconsequential to the core narrative, it serves to reflect the tumultuous psychological state of Raskolnikov. What we find is an uneasy internal struggle that is constantly at odds with each other; the morally upright man battling against the apathetic nihilist. It is a struggle that plagues him throughout the novel, and most strikingly just prior to the murder of Alyona, the pawnshop dealer. Because these two protagonists are unable to remain steadfast in their convictions, we are therefore unable to rely on them as consistent storytellers, consistent reflections of their world. Everything has to be read under a microscope, for what is said might not necessarily be what is true. As we have seen, Dostoevsky’s implementation of the unreliable narrator is reinforced in a variety of manners, yet to what effect? What is Dostoevsky channeling with the inclusion of the unreliable narrator? On a purely individual level, he is asking all his readers to question the very conundrums that stupefy his protagonists. Obvious feelings towards experiences, like pain, are called into question.