In July, we will be reading Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky.
Please post your comments and questions in this thread.
Printable View
In July, we will be reading Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky.
Please post your comments and questions in this thread.
Awesome. I just started Absalom, Abasalom!, so when I finish that, I'll get right to Notes from the Underground. Looking forward to it; it's my first Dostoevsky.
It's a bit short so I can easily participate with you people :)
I'm a slow reader :(
Gave up on Absalom, Absalom! (Just not in the mood for it at the moment.) Will start Notes tonight.
There's nothing wrong with that. Reading slow can be a good thing. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu3li
I read this not too long ago and loved it. I can't wait to hear everyone else's thoughts.
I just got through part 1 and a bit of part 2, and I like it so far, though I'm not loving it. The first part was interesting, but a bit boring honestly, and I found my mind drifting quite a bit, and had no real desire to go back and re-read what I glazed over. Still, I found part 1 interesting for the most part.
What's surprised me so far is how funny it is. I didn't expect that at all, as one usually doesn't when it comes to "the classics" (especially the Russian ones--who knew Russians could be funny, Yakov Smirnoff notwithstanding). I love his little insults to the reader. As I read, I highlighted some quotes that struck me as particularly funny/clever, which I'll list below.
"I did not take bribes, you see, so I was bound to find a recompense in that, at least. (A poor jest, but I will not scratch it out. I wrote it thinking it would sound very witty; but now that I have seen myself that I only wanted to show off in a despicable way, I will not scratch it out on purpose!)"
"Remember I spoke just now of vengeance. (I am sure you did not take it in.)"
"Twice two makes four is a pert coxcomb who stands with arms akimbo barring your path and spitting. I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."
"Whether it's good or bad, it is sometimes very pleasant, too, to smash things."
"I swear to you, gentlemen, there is not one thing, not one word of what I have written that I really believe. "
And my favorite:
"Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation."
This is probably the most famous passage from all of the book, and probably from all of Dostoevsky's novels. Alyosha's warning that "all is permitted" from The BK is probably the only other Dostoevsky people regularly quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Well, I'm glad I was savvy enough to pick it out. :)
Great!! I'm going to begin tonight. This will be my third Dostoevsky book.
Just downloaded it on my nook. Will start later today after my trip to Costco
:) Thanks. I hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
After finishing the first four chapters of part one, I found the underground man very pessimist. He suffers from hatred and spite that makes his life miserable and his look at things so negative.
Note: my first reading of existentialism
So, I have mixed feelings on this book. I liked the writing and the humor, and the completely loathsome narrator, but I just didn't feel like the story really went anywhere. I was waiting for something, anything, "big" to happen, but it never did. I mean, the narrator sets the story up as something he can't forget, something he has to write down, and after finishing my thought was, "That's it?" Maybe that's the point, or maybe I missed something. The latter seems the more likely of the two.
I did absolutely love the dinner scene, though. I could just seem him pacing up and down that room. If I were the other guys there, I would've gotten the hell out of there, and fast. He seemed liable to bust a spring and just kill someone at any moment (kind of what I was waiting for, really).
I also really liked the complete unreliableness of the narrator. I've read plenty of literature with unreliable narrators, but this one has been the least trustworthy of the bunch by far.
What're some other people's thoughts?
I disagree with the first paragraph, and think the one aspect you're overlooking is the premise of the novella. Our unreliable narrator goes to painstaking detail to chronicle the realms of this thoughts throughout Part 1; Part 2 is a narration based on Part 1's premise. The inner workings of the mind depicted in Part 1 is on display for Part 2. Because the narrator stumbles on himself, the plot should be seen as the heights and valleys to which his psyche takes him. On reading this the first time (this is my 2nd), I didn't expect a climactic plot--if a climax is to be found at all, it'll be within each substory, the emotional heights to which the narrator allows himself to travel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I find this novella a blend of philosophy, psychological study, fiction and non-fiction: the first part of the novella, obviously given under the guise of a crazed narrator, could just as well be a psychoanalysis of the author, or anyone under similar circumstances, transcending the role of the narrator. I'm working through Part 2 once more and will be able to contribute again; and while I do have some qualms about the writing as well, I think the extent to which Dostoyevsky builds acomplex within the mind is laudable, and indicative of a brilliant author.
I probably read the novel under the incorrect light, and will probably enjoy it more if I read it again.
I'm working my way through Part 2 again, stopping right after our narrator visits Simonov and commits to going to Zverkov's dinner, and all I can continue to think about is Part 1. As a typically uncertain person myself, the uncertainty of the narrator is something I can reflect on, but throughout Part 1, our narrator discusses the uncertainty of uncertainty; to me, that's a chilling though. Through a sequence of thought, he creates a phantasmagoria of separate conceptions of himself, all blurring what he really is as a person and narrator, but more importantly blurring the blurs of reality.
It reminds me of the movie Inception, except with more complexity. Creating these alterior images of himself leave enough space to collapse that reality, only to rebuild it again into completely different images with the same materials, then to demolish it again. Our only constant in reading this is the narrator, everything else is a question, an uncertain question, one whose uncertainty in the narrator makes uncertain the question about uncertainty.
I've just started it, and, from reading the thread and what I've read so far, it seems to need a close reading. I might try charting hat he says about the human condition etc, to see if it throws up any patterns, ideas etc.
I have also just started this book after finishing up another and I must say that I'm unsure of what to make of the first ten pages or so. Will continue reading and come back to this page once I am done with the book.
I've just started reading it, and I seem to be picking up references to sin. He calls himself a wicked person, without really specifying why, and the only solid aspect we get of him is that he is, or was, a collegiate assessor. Is this a reference to how we denote ourselves; through our jobs?
A little further on I got a strong sense of Lucifer in Paradise Lost. For example he says:
the conscious of good and lofty, the more inclined to deeds unworthy. (paraphrased)
Shameful accursed sweetness reminds me of forbidden fruit being the sweetest.
He then talks of the "pleasure of despair" and being more intelligent than others. Despair is the sin of Lucifer is it not?
I just finished the scene in which the underground man had dinner with zverkov and others and, wow. The narrator really is a low life. I feel pity for him but certainly no sympathy. He seems to cause his own alienation. He begs for friendship in one instance and degrades them the next. After this scene I have really started to despise the narrator. Thoughts? Varying opinions?
I don't know Paul. I've yet to read Paradise Lost (shame on me, I know), so I don't know all of the possible allusions. The famous lines/scene I know fro PL is where Lucifer exclaims (and, also paraphrasing), "Evil, by thy good" when he embraces his evil ways. I can see a lot of that happening in Notes from the Underground.
@ChicagoReader - I never ended up despising him; I felt sorry for him, because he seems to be someone with some real psychological problems that may not be entirely in his control. That isn't to say I liked him, but I definitely enjoyed reading about his horridness (and the dinner scene was definitely one of my favorite parts). He reminds me of a more matured, slightly more unbalanced Holden Caulfield, whom I disliked more than I did Dostoevsky's narrator.
That is a good point, he certainly doesn't seem to have control of himself. Perhaps he does have some mental ailment besides being overly sensitive and having no self esteem. Also, I want to clarify that I am enjoying the read. I still despise the narrator but in a good way, if that makes sense. I agree, the dinner scene has been my favorite so far (I'm on page 75) and the interaction with Liza was also interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I've been noticing that it seems that he holds other people's self confidence against them. Almost like he envies everyone but can't admit it to himself. This is the feeling I am getting from him and it's something I can relate to, though no where near to his degree of contempt.
I actually love when I dislike the narrator/main character (to a point--I definitely wouldn't want all my reading to have dislikable characters) in a story. It makes it more interesting.
I can see the allusions to Paradise Lost, but it is written in secular terms. The book I have refers to notes about The Origin of Species and science. Perhaps he represents - with his sceptical attitude - a secular Lucifer rebelling against science. I'm speculating though. I'll have to see if this plays out. I'm not very far on yet.
You're maybe onto something with that Paul. I studied this book in college for a philosophy course on existentialism. I remember the professor focusing on the first half of the novel as a reaction against Enlightenment notions of human rationality and the optimistic utopianism proposed by Marxists and some Utilitarians.
I adore Dostoevsky, but found both The Double and Notes from Underground somewhat tedious. Both seem rather too didactic and lack the flair of, say, Camus' The stranger. The endings of both leave me decidedly flat. Maybe I read too much existentialist philosophy in my youth. :yawnb:
I started reading the fiction quite late. Your post reminded me of a question I had when reading the first chapter: what is a "collegiate assessor"? I didn't find anything relevant on wiki. Can anyone help explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Cheers.
I see this fiction the same way as you do. It's a piece of humorous philosophical narrative. But I found more general personal opinions than logical arguments in it.:frown2:Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I did find some interesting remarks, like this one from chpt 7:
One's own free unfettered choice, one's own caprice, however wild it may be, one's own fancy worked up at times to frenzy--is that very "most advantageous advantage" which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms. And how do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.
The first idea popping out of my head is that Dostoevsky is uncovering the human beings' want for democratic system in which everyone has the right to vote, that is to make choices. More often than not, it is done by caprice rather than reason. But as long as the voters can make INDEPENDENT choices, they would go for the system. They like the feeling of having the freedom to make choices.
Perhaps I'm going a bit far from what Dostoevsky intended to say. Did anyone have either similar or different response to those last words of chapter 7?