Dostoevsky took the manuscript to Nekrasov and returned home. Shortly afterwards the doorbell of his house rang, and he opened the door to the excited Nekrasov and Grigorovich, both of whom congratulated him on his debut novel, of which they had only read 10 pages. They finished the full 112-page work during the night at Dostoevsky’s apartment. The next morning, the three men went to the critic Vissarion Belinsky; Nekrasov proclaimed Dostoevsky «the New Gogol» though Belinsky replied sceptically «You find Gogols springing up like mushrooms». Dostoevsky himself did not believe his book would receive a positive review from Belinsky, but when Nekrasov visited Belinsky in the evening, the latter wanted to meet Dostoevsky to congratulate him on his debut. Dostoevsky proposed to issue Poor Folk in the Fatherland Notes, but it was instead published in the almanac St. Petersburg Collection on January 15, 1846.
Themes and style
Poor Folk explores poverty and the relationship between the poor and the rich, common themes of literary naturalism. Largely influenced by Nikolai Gogol’s The Overcoat, Alexander Pushkin’s The Stationmaster and Letters of Abelard and Heloise by Peter Abelard and Héloïse d’Argenteuil, it is an epistolary novel composed of letters written by Varvara and her close friend Makar Devushkin. The name of the book and the main female character were adapted from Nikolai Karamzin’s Poor Liza. Additional elements include the backgrounds of the two protagonists and the tragic ending, both typical characteristics of a middle-class novel.
Belinsky and others saw The Overcoat as the inspiration for the novel. Later critics stated that the sentimental-humanitarian Poor Folk contained a great deal of parody and satire of Gogol books; however, there are some dissenters. Karin Jeanette Harmon guesses in «Double Parody Equals Anti-Parody» that Dostoyevsky mixes the parody of the sentimental epistolary novel with the parody of the naturalistic sketch of the clerk. Robert Payne rejects the idea of any satiric content; he notes that satire began in The Double. A similar view was held by Belinsky, who also stated that «Dostoyevsky’s talent is … not descriptive, but to the highest degree creative.» Victor Terras thought that Dostoyevsky did not use satire except in a few cases, but instead employed a «humor derived from the eternal conflict between the simple soul of a good man and the complex apparatus of the soulless, institutionalized society run by ‘clever’ people.» Joseph Frank, who suggested that the whole work is a «serious parody», recalled that Poor Folk burlesques the «high-society adventure novel, the Gogolian humorous local color-tale» and «the debunking physiological sketch». Victor Terras dubbed it a «travesty of the sentimental epistolary love story.» The Contemporary stated «In this work comedy is somehow explored and includes an appreciable tone, colour and even the language of Gogol and Kvitka».
«Through his tale», wrote The Northern Bee, «Dostoyevsky wanted to utilize Gogol’s humour with naive simplicity of the undisturbed Osnovyanenko [pen name of Kvitka].» Another perspective that describes the connection between Poor Folk and The Overcoat is the position that the former is considered the continuation of the latter, that Dostoevsky picked up where Gogol left off in his tale about poor civil servants. This view does not imply that Dostoevsky did not offer innovations since this novel also distinguished itself by humanizing those that were – in Gogol’s tale — mechanical and lifeless. This is aligned with the theory that Dostoevsky attempted – both in Poor Folk and The Double – to penetrate into the psychology of Gogol’s characters. It is claimed that the result of Dostoevsky’s unequivocal humanization of the Gogolian model intensified its effect. Gogol’s debonair portrayal of sociopsychological frustrations is a case in point. Dostoevsky took a different path by highlighting its tragic aspect.
According to critic Rebecca Epstein Matveyev, Pushkin’s «The Stationmaster» serves as a «thematic subtext, as a basis for Devushkin’s literary experiments, and as a resource for his epistolary relationship.» Both, The Stationmaster and The Overcoat, are mentioned in the letters between Dobroselova and Devushkin. Dostoevsky may have chosen the epistolary genre to include his personal critical observations, similar to real-life letters between writer and addressee. According to Yakubovich, Dostoevsky uses Poor Folk as his diary. However, as an external narrator is missing the only source for the character’s motivation and personality is available in the letters and Dobroselova’s diary. The numerous different voices, that is Devushkin’s quotations from stories, his commentaries about these books and his own works, are examples of polyphony. These effects confuse the reader and hide the narrator.
Sexual guilt is another recognizable theme in Poor Folk. This is demonstrated, for instance, in the suggestion of something dishonorable in Varvara’s past as well as the fact that she and Devushkin are distantly related, hinting an incestuous love. Other sources contributed in this view such as Konstantin Mochulsky who said that «the motif of an old man’s loving a girl with its vague interweaving of eroticism and ‘paternal affection’ is one of Dostoevsky’s favorite themes.»
Reception
Poor Folk received nationwide critical acclaim. Dostoevsky observed that «the whole of Russia is talking about my Poor Folk». As soon as he read the manuscript for Poor Folk, Belinsky named it Russia’s first «social novel». Alexander Herzen praised the book in his essay «About the Progress of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia», noting the book’s «socialistic tendencies and animations». The work was classified by critic Pavel Annenkov as a work of the so-called «natural school». The newspaper The Northern Bee recorded:
News about a new genius, Mr. Dostoevsky, is circulating across St. Petersburg. We do not know whether it is his real name or a pen-name. The reading audience is praising his new novel, Poor People. I have read this novel and said: ‘Poor Russian readers!’ However, Mr. Dostoevsky is a man of some talent and, if he finds his way in literature, he will be able to write something decent.»
— The Northern Bee, 1 February 1848, no. 27
Nikolay Dobrolyubov, in the 1861 essay «Downtrodden People», wrote that Dostoevsky studies poor reality and expresses humanistic ideas. He also praised him for illustrating human nature and taking out «souls in the centre of the depth which are caged after protesting for identity against the exterior, violent pressure, and presents it to our verdict».
Apollon Grigoriev wrote in The Finnish Herald: «Dostoevsky starts to play in our literature the same role Hoffmann played in German literature … He became so deeply immersed in the life of civil servants that the dull and uninteresting everyday life became for him a nightmare close to madness». Count Vladimir Sollogub also liked the novel, stating that «it was written with force and simplicity by a great talent». Valerian Maykov noted after a number of publications by Dostoevsky: «Gogol was usually the leading social poet, while Dostoevsky usually the leading psychological poet. The former is known as the representative of the contemporary society or contemporary circle, for the latter the society itself becomes interesting through its influence on other people».
