Dostoyevsky: Notes From Underground

Just finished reading this and wondered if anyone had any thoughts on it. It is one of those novels you sometimes read in which you feel you've missed the essence of it, or at least a great deal.

So far as I know, he wrote it as a sort of attack upon the 19th century optimists and idealists who believed that through reason and science there would be lasting progress. The UM himself is living proof that human beings are not always rational. He is thoroughly repellent, unpredictable and irrational. The word the UM uses repeteadly in the translation I have is 'spite'; an unreasonable, pointless spite directed against everyone, including himself. Indeed, he is a masochistic, obtaining pleasure from physical and mental pain. In fact, reason, far from being the source of joy, is regarded by the UM as a sort of illness or curse. Far better to be an unthinking, unreflective imbecile.

'Consciousness' has paralysed modern individuals. Because of our rational consciousness, we cannot believe in any Absolutes and cannot justify our actions (in this he seems to anticipate the existentialists): "Where are my foundations? Where am I to get them from?" . Yet this existentialist position, that there is no essential core to human beings, no right way of being human, is used to undermine the belief in progress. We are unpredictable creatures who cannot be defined by reason or by anything else. In fact we dislike being defined. It feels like a trap. People would rather behave in a dangerous and irrational way; would rather act against their best interests than be predictable. We are condemned to be free. But Dostoyevsky seems to saying that we are condemned to want to be free. The UM argues that some will act in a way that brings them pain just to prove to themselves that they can be utterly free to choose- that even reason doesn't control them, let alone 'human nature'. To choose to do yourself harm "preserves what is most precious- our individuality".

So is he saying that a human being can best be defined as the creature that cannot be defined? We are forever 'becoming', 'progressing' and building; forever discovering and seeking to understand. If we ever finally arrived we should go mad.

What about the plot itself? What is he trying to say in the UM's bizarre interaction with other people?

I am reading this book; of course as you said he seems to point out that man is not always definable and that he is a rational animal is ridiculous. Man is not just the way we try to understand in scientific terns and we must rise above such labels or standards by which we measure human nature.

Of course Dostoevsky rose higher and higher from the limits set by our social scientists and philosophers. Man as you said is not always predictable the way we kind of try to do so. There is no measuring rod to measure man. He is mysterious and the kind achievements at his command is really insignificant given his mysteriousness.

I have lately finished the Brothers Karamazov and it was philosophically and psychologically superb and as a matter of fact all his books are really treasure troves and they are the legacies incomparable.

I have of late the Dream of a Ridiculous Man and I cannot find its equivalence anywhere and I simply carried away by his story as if I am one of the characters in the story.

Speaking of this novel Notes from Underground he is giving an exact depiction of the modern world

xxxxx

I recently read Crime & Punishment. Just brilliant. I was completely absorbed in it for the past two weeks. One of its many strengths is that it feels like it applies to any time period. I tried to read this author previously and I guess I wasn't capable or ready to read him. Now, I am looking forward to reading Karamazov and much more. C&P is a work that stays with you.

but it was in my early Dostoevsky days - early 60s - and I went on to read most of his novels, but I don't remember much about Notes. I'm glad you posted about it; since it is a novella, it is not very long so I'm going to reread it. I do remember that it reminded me of Kafka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufustfirefly

I recently read Crime & Punishment. Just brilliant. I was completely absorbed in it for the past two weeks. One of its many strengths is that it feels like it applies to any time period. I tried to read this author previously and I guess I wasn't capable or ready to read him. Now, I am looking forward to reading Karamazov and much more. C&P is a work that stays with you.

---

Agreed- I've never been more affected by a novel. Because of the unrelenting nature of the book, much less the subject matter, I'm certain it isn't a work that will please everyone, but I've never been more engrossed in a piece of literature in my life.

I believe Notes was Dostoevsky's first work post incarceration and jump-started his subsequent psychological pieces. Kierkegaard may be the philosophical father of existentialism, but Dostoevsky's Notes was the harbinger of all existential literature. The first half has a feverish energy to it, packed w/ super-consciousness and an almost dizzying hyper-focus. I wonder how much of the UM's characterization paralleled some of Dostoevsky's own actue pathologies while being confined to prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jermac

I know that some--perhaps many--will disagree with what I'm going to say here, but in my opinion modern literature in a sense begins with Dostoesky--specifally with Notes From Underground. There is nothing else like it preceding it in the realm of literature. I think Notes From Underground is the initial literary work of existialism. I thnk modern literature was "born" with Dostoevsky.

---

I've heard literary academics endorse this view, Jermac.

''What is he trying to say in the UM's bizarre interaction with other people?''


It's been an infinitude of years since I read that classic and hope my writing is on point and agree with Jermac that it is the true beginning of modern literature. This being because it illustrates man in a state of alienation -- it should be understood that UM served as microcosm for all of modern humanity -- with the narrative being a reflection of the thoughts that tormented him.

He survives 'taking under consideration the circumstances under which our society has generally been formed'. Thus, he is an unwilling victim (for lack of a better term) of a rigid society which imposes conformity. The resulting alienation makes him feel helpless and unworthy. This despite the fact that he inherited 60,000 rubles which was a handsome sum at that time. As I recall, he made frequent references to 'gentlemen' in attendance. But were there any people in his cell? I don't believe so. I believe the audience was imaginary and that this was what 'empowered' him because he had no control over real people or society.

Alienation, unfulfilled expectations or hopes, despair, even the word ''underground'' bespeak of self abasement -- all reflect the state of mind of the narrator who stands for everyone in modern society. Perhaps Dostoyevsky is saying the nihilist movement had a valid basis. Or perhaps he was saying this is the consequence of adherence to the movement (the UM started out in life as an idealist - perhaps he succumbed to nihilist idealism and Dostoyevsky was warning against it). I don't which would be a better interpretation. But perhaps someone who has read the book more recently may have a better answer.

xxxxx.

I came across this college essay on the subject of Notes and Existentialism:


http://www.international.ucla.edu/me...s/Rapoport.pdf


I believe this gives a very good summary of the co-relation between the two.

Not to change the subject but consider this - Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote in Ethan Brand,

"What is the unpardonable sin?

... 'It is the sin that grew within my own breast'. Said Ethan brand standing erect, with a pride ... "A sin that grew nowhere else! The sin of an intellect that triumphed over the sense of brotherhood with man and reverence for God ... the only sin that deserves a recompense of immortal agony!"


This story also is existentialist. It deals with self imposed isolation which grew out of pride and alienation - this is unpardonable and it leads to death. Is this what happened to the Underground Man as well? Note that both stories were written at about the same time. Brand was also visited by 'three worthies' as UM was "visited" by those "gentlemen". Brand went from being a humane idealist to an isolated individual who lost his true humanity. When one's humanity is lost, there is nothing further to live for. "The great hills played a concert among themselves, each contributing a strain of airy sweetness". Thus, Nature rejoiced when this evil expired (that is, when Brand died).

Will this be UM's fate as well?

'Dostoevsky and Tolstoy never met. Can you imagine them meeting? What would they have said to each other?"


That is one of the greatest questions I have ever seen in all my years of reading 19th century Russian literature.

I read that they were in close proximity in St Petersburg at one time but did not connect. How sad. Yet, Tolstoy supposedly cried when told of Dostoyevsky's death. A meeting between them would have been very interesting.

xxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jermac

I know that some--perhaps many--will disagree with what I'm going to say here, but in my opinion modern literature in a sense begins with Dostoesky--specifally with Notes From Underground. There is nothing else like it preceding it in the realm of literature. I think Notes From Underground is the initial literary work of existialism. I thnk modern literature was "born" with Dostoevsky.

---

I agree with you completely. I like Dostoevsky beyond measure. I have recently read the Brothers Karamazov and the book in fact transformed me and changed my outlook on life considerably. I have read another novel of his Crime & Punishment and a story called the dream of a ridiculous man. All of these books moved me beyond measure.

I could not find Notes From Underground in the bookshops of my city. In fact the city I am in is not a good place for book lovers and few persons are interested in books and still fewer buy them. I read part of it on the internet. Reading books in the net is what I distaste and yet this book is something I cannot afford to miss and therefore I am into reading this book on the internet.

What I like of Dostoevsky is his his style. His uses a simple style

"Dostoevsky was very much aware of Hawthorne--he was familiar with his writing; and Ethan Brand predates Notes From Underground by maybe fifteen years. I would even go so far as to say that Hawthorne was an influence on Dostoesvky--at least as far as the story Ethan Brand goes. "


Amazing! I had not heard or read of this before. But now I can see parallels between them in so far as crime, punishment, and divine retribution is concerned. I will search to see if there is a study which draws parallels between their writings. Do you know of any writings on the subject, off hand?

xxxxx

What happened to Jermac's posts?