A bonus question sparked by your commentary regarding the psychology of The Double:
I was struck by how much the outcome of the character slowly being replaced in society by an idealized version of himself seems to mirror the modern phenomenon of celebrity — and even more so, celebrity in the age of the internet (e.g. a little celebrity …
A bonus question sparked by your commentary regarding the psychology of The Double:
I was struck by how much the outcome of the character slowly being replaced in society by an idealized version of himself seems to mirror the modern phenomenon of celebrity — and even more so, celebrity in the age of the internet (e.g. a little celebrity for everyone). The public’s idealized, external projection of identity slowly supersedes one’s own flawed, internal identity. Eventually, no ownership of self remains and the individual disassociates to give up control completely.
Observing what often happens to people as they become famous — addiction, suicide, self sabotage, etc — I’d pose that the lack of ownership over their own identity slowly erodes their ego.
As someone who has come from obscurity to a place of relative prominence (Crown Prince of the History Nerds) in the last year, do you think there’s any truth to this based on your own experience?
Do you think The Double was possibly a meditation on Dostoyevsky’s loss of control over his own identity after his meteoric rise to become the darling of the Petersburg literary scene?
Great question, as, re: CY, there is definitely an interesting introduction of friction vis a vis referring to oneself as a dissident and eschewing direct engagement in the public establishment vs the inevitable accumulation of notoriety/status in one who does it well as a [mostly pay-walled but still very publicly findable] blogger.
In fact, I would love to just hear an hour [or two!] riff on how DC & CY define & think about "identity" in general; it's not just something famous people struggle with!
A bonus question sparked by your commentary regarding the psychology of The Double:
I was struck by how much the outcome of the character slowly being replaced in society by an idealized version of himself seems to mirror the modern phenomenon of celebrity — and even more so, celebrity in the age of the internet (e.g. a little celebrity for everyone). The public’s idealized, external projection of identity slowly supersedes one’s own flawed, internal identity. Eventually, no ownership of self remains and the individual disassociates to give up control completely.
Observing what often happens to people as they become famous — addiction, suicide, self sabotage, etc — I’d pose that the lack of ownership over their own identity slowly erodes their ego.
As someone who has come from obscurity to a place of relative prominence (Crown Prince of the History Nerds) in the last year, do you think there’s any truth to this based on your own experience?
Do you think The Double was possibly a meditation on Dostoyevsky’s loss of control over his own identity after his meteoric rise to become the darling of the Petersburg literary scene?
Great question, as, re: CY, there is definitely an interesting introduction of friction vis a vis referring to oneself as a dissident and eschewing direct engagement in the public establishment vs the inevitable accumulation of notoriety/status in one who does it well as a [mostly pay-walled but still very publicly findable] blogger.
In fact, I would love to just hear an hour [or two!] riff on how DC & CY define & think about "identity" in general; it's not just something famous people struggle with!