The Eternal Husband

This was written at the height of Dostoevsky’s powers, 1869, and it certainly has flashes of greatness. When a man who had an affair with a married woman a decade ago is confronted in the dead of night by her husband after eerily running across him in Petersburg again and again, it reminded me a little of The Double, his second novel. That begins a gradual game of cat and mouse between the two men with guilt running through it ala Raskolnikov and Petrovich in Crime and Punishment, except the cuckolded husband is a rogue himself, mistreating his(?) daughter and being a chaotic nuisance. It’s actually more a battle of wills where both men have elements of each other’s personalities – yin and yang, if you will – but show more interestingly, it’s the “eternal husband” who was cheated on who is actually more reprehensible.

The scene out at the friend’s dacha where the girl is taken, with the two middle-aged men socializing with the young women and the cuckold hoping to marry a 15-year-old, was absolutely brilliant. How the novella resolves itself with the letters and the flash forward was also very well done. I was less enamored with the middle of the book which felt a little repetitive, but it also had its moments, like the scene in the middle of the night with the apparition, which was a nice bit of foreshadowing. Overall, a fine read, and I’m grateful to Melville House for having published it. It would have been helpful had it included some footnotes or endnotes for some of the references in the text, however. show less

Dostoevsky’s story explores the relationship between two very different men - Trusotsky seems to be a complete idiot - drunk, feverish and babbling inconsistencies - one of those strange characters that the novels of Dostoevsky are populated with - Velchaninov is the respected, wealthy, bourgeois Petersborg man.

Velchaninov once had an affair with Trusotsky’s wife - she’s now dead and the two men meet many years later. Velchaninov is not sure if Trusotsky knows about the affair and wants to find out more about Trusotsky - Trusotsky on the other hand seems both fascinated and repelled by Velchaninov.

It might be labelled as a comedy - but it’s a black one - it's the unsettling laughter - there’s a very fine line between the show more hilarious and the hysterical and horrific here - the absurd cat-and-mouse psychotic game these two old “friends” have going on escalates and end in a bloody confrontation. show less

There is no question that Dostoyevsky is a master, as far as getting inside his protagonist's brain and dissecting it into the most unthinkable yet quite plausible details. I just couldn't help but practically "see" the instances of mental torment as Velchaninov, "a former society man", recollects certain grave indiscretions and even insignificant peccadilloes that humiliate and haunt him relentlessly. It actually makes him physically sick. (Many of us can relate to that, we have all been there - tormented by the past... Not to say that it could ever be to this extent, so sinister - this is Dostoyevsky's realm...). Enter Trusotsky - and mental war begins. Now guilt drives Velchaninov almost to madness and to involuntary decisions of show more repentance at the hand of the person whom he so cruelly cheated long ago. And here's a small paradox - the novella is predictable and unpredictable at the same time. And also a bit stretched out, it seemed. Probably to deepen the sense of no escape. The ending is rather ironic. show less

A restless sense of being adrift plagued me the last few days. Watching American Gods helped. This brilliant novel cauterized my wounds and afforded me some welcome elan.

The Eternal Husband is wicked psychology. One could compare it with Tolstoy's Kreutzer Sonata as case studies on marriage. Dostoevsky appears more concerned with guilt as a driving force in behavior, whereas Lev was perhaps waxing fanciful, but nonetheless he blames the dames. Dostoevsky isn't misogynistic, he aptly fins some people ill disposed to fidelity and others incapable of an effective response to such.

There's much to embrace in these 140 pages, even if one's not blessed with white nights. There's drunkenness and brain fevers. There's even a hanging.

There are many books and plays and movies that describe some 'evolving relationship' between two people. The two people typically go through stages: love, admiration, envy, hate, self-realisation, etc. etc. I wonder if I will ever enjoy those stories again: this book is so superior in this respect I can't imagine how I ever enjoyed e.g. Jane Eyre or Still LIfe. It's true that, when you're reading The Eternal Husband, half the time you have no clear idea why Velchaninov and Trusotsky are saying what they're saying or doing what they're doing. But that's the beauty of it: it all makes itself clear at the end, and all those inferior novels that use some variant of Kubler-Ross stages to frame relationships will never satisfy you again.

But show more Dostoevsky is also amazing when he writes big scenes with lots of people. Think of the scene in The Idiot when everyone is competing for Nastasya Filippovna, or the scene in The Brothers Karamazov when Dmitri confronts his father in front of all those people. In The Eternal Husband, the big scene is the party at the Zakhlebinins. Truly wonderful: we almost meet Velchaninov and Trusotsky for the first time as they struggle with each other for attention.

My only reservation is that the first few pages, which explain Velchaninov's present state of mind, only make proper sense when you've finished the book. It's worthwhile rereading those pages after the ending.

The translation I read (Hugh Aplin) was execrable. Avoid it. show less

This is called "the eternal husband" but it's told from the point of view of the "eternal bachelor". In fact the novel opens with him, so right away we know it's really his story and not the eternal husband's. The title could be "what the eternal husband did to the eternal bachelor one hot Petersburg summer". (Strange, one doesn't think of St Petersburg as having hot summers...)
But boy is this one hot! With tempers and passions, turmoils and paranoias!
The eternal husband is that man who is born to be a husband, born to stay by his wife's side, even if she betrays him (which this one does, with our eternal bachelor, among others). (And born to become husband to another, should the first wife be no longer there...)
The eternal bachelor is show more of course the man who never marries.
What happens when the wife of the eternal husband dies, and the eternal husband seeks out the eternal bachelor who was once his wife's lover (does he know, or not?)
That's our story, and it's a modern one, despite having been written in 1871 (in an introduction Alberto Moravia goes so far as to say that it's a typical 20th century comic novel, -- and therefore ahead of its time --, as opposed to the typical 19th century "pathetic" novel). Who says old novels can't speak to our day? (maybe no one, but I definitely hear talk of needing new forms because we live in a new and different age).
There are no cars, no phones, no internet in this book (or forms that speak to those technologies), but it has people, (i.e. us), and people are the same time ever after. show less

"... وظیفه اساسی این طور مرد ها این است که "همیشه شوهر" باشند. یا واضح تر بگوییم، در همه زندگیشان فقط شوهر باشند، نه هیچ چیز دیگر. چنین مردی متولد می شود و بزرگ می شود تا یک بار ازوداج کند و بعد ضمیمه و تابع زنش گردد. حتی اگرچه طبیعتی مخصوص به خود داشته باشد. صفت مشخص این چنین شوهری آن است که درست مثل یک زینت رسمی به کار برود."

شنیدن کتاب همیشه شوهر برای من راحت نبود، به سادگی روند داستان از دستم در می رفت. اما با توجه به show more قسمت هایی که تونستم دنبال کنم، باید بگم کتاب خیلی جذاب و با ظرافتی به نظرم اومد.

شروع داستان برخورد پاول پاولویچ که همسرش رو از دست داده با دوست قدیمیش، ولچانینف رو توصیف می کنه. با ادامه دادن داستان متوجه می شیم که گذشته این دو نفر با ناتالیا، همسر سابق پاول پاولویچ گره خورده.
شخصیت کاراکتر ها و از جمله پاول پاولویچ یا "همیشه شوهر" با ظرافت و جزییات خاصی توصیف می شه. کسی که با عاشق شدن، انگار همه حق ها رو به معشوق می ده و هیچ حقی برای خودش قائل نمی شه. شخصیتی که به راحتی گناه همه چیز رو به گردن خودش می اندازه و به همین خاطر به راحتی از حقوق خودش می گذره.
تعداد قابل توجهی از دیالوگ ها دوپهلو و با کنایه هستند. خیلی از تعریف و تمجیدها به نوعی دربردارنده اهانت به طرف مقابل می تونند باشند. شاید بشه گفت اتفاقاتی که در طول داستان می افته، اثر رو به نوعی به مخلوط داستانی تراژدی و کمدی تبدیل می کنه.


"این از آن زن هایی است که به نظر می رسد برای بی وفا بودن زاییده شده اند. این گونه زن ها قبل از ازدواج به این راه نمی افتند. طبیعتشان به طور کلی تقاضا می کند که برای این کار ازدواج کنند. شوهرشان اولین عاشق آن هاست؛ اما فقط بعد از ادواج. هیچ کس به این آسانی و به این مهارت ازدواج نمی کند و شوهر همیشه مسوولیت و جور اولین عاشق را به گردن می گیرد. این زن ها همه چیز را کاملا حق خود تصور می کنند و طبیعتا کاملا خودشان را پاک و بی آلایش می دانند." show less