Scan barcode
nvrrrdie's review against another edition
dark
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I read the Norton Critical Reader with translation by Michael Katz.
As of writing this review I have not yet finished reading all of the (useful) added texts/criticisms appended to the novel.
Essentially this novel is a response to the utopian ideals presented by rationalist philosophy as it began gaining cultural prominence in 19th ce Russia. Dostoevsky counters the utopian idea with the image of a man who is irrational. The underground man is vain and obsessed with suffering and torments others while not gaining anything from such behaviour - particularly Liza, the unwitting witness of his shame and misery onto whom he unleashes his aggression.
The perfect and deterministic rationalism that Notes responds to suggests that prosperity is the only advantageous quality for the improvement of mankind's condition. It will correlate to modernity and achievement. Notes questions this, asking whether suffering may not also have its advantage and whether people would actually behave in such a manner that rationalism suggests - this appears doubtful to Dostoevsky.
There is also discussion of rationalism + determinism that I have difficulty summarizing right now. I don't know if I would consider this correct upon review but it may read as the anxiety of a culture that is no longer sure of free will and has to reckon for the first time with the suggestion of determinism. Although the novel may argue against it, I don't know if I find it particularly clear or compelling. I would prefer to turn to much later and more contemporary works on the subject for a more satisfying reply.
Overall I did find this of some interest especially because I do also prefer to reject utopias or the supposed linear growth and progress /achievement of civilization - I think those are mistaken and limited in perspective. My understanding of this novel is far from complete right now and I think I kind of get how it is trying to disrupt the questionable basis of the views of his contemporaries. But as for effectively driving that point home in part ii either it's beyond my grasp or it's just not quite there.
Chuckled a lot because I too am a indulgent hermetic freak who is deeply sick from my own consciousness (I think these qualities are important to note as how Dostoevsky intends to present his countermodel to the rational character) but like...... yikes man! glad I'm irrational but not THAT bad << joke but also he is horrible. as intended.
As of writing this review I have not yet finished reading all of the (useful) added texts/criticisms appended to the novel.
Essentially this novel is a response to the utopian ideals presented by rationalist philosophy as it began gaining cultural prominence in 19th ce Russia. Dostoevsky counters the utopian idea with the image of a man who is irrational. The underground man is vain and obsessed with suffering and torments others while not gaining anything from such behaviour - particularly Liza, the unwitting witness of his shame and misery onto whom he unleashes his aggression.
The perfect and deterministic rationalism that Notes responds to suggests that prosperity is the only advantageous quality for the improvement of mankind's condition. It will correlate to modernity and achievement. Notes questions this, asking whether suffering may not also have its advantage and whether people would actually behave in such a manner that rationalism suggests - this appears doubtful to Dostoevsky.
There is also discussion of rationalism + determinism that I have difficulty summarizing right now. I don't know if I would consider this correct upon review but it may read as the anxiety of a culture that is no longer sure of free will and has to reckon for the first time with the suggestion of determinism. Although the novel may argue against it, I don't know if I find it particularly clear or compelling. I would prefer to turn to much later and more contemporary works on the subject for a more satisfying reply.
Overall I did find this of some interest especially because I do also prefer to reject utopias or the supposed linear growth and progress /achievement of civilization - I think those are mistaken and limited in perspective. My understanding of this novel is far from complete right now and I think I kind of get how it is trying to disrupt the questionable basis of the views of his contemporaries. But as for effectively driving that point home in part ii either it's beyond my grasp or it's just not quite there.
Chuckled a lot because I too am a indulgent hermetic freak who is deeply sick from my own consciousness (I think these qualities are important to note as how Dostoevsky intends to present his countermodel to the rational character) but like...... yikes man! glad I'm irrational but not THAT bad << joke but also he is horrible. as intended.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Misogyny and Rape
The underground man forces himself onto Liza to punish her for humiliating him.shibbie's review against another edition
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Emotional abuse, Mental illness, Misogyny, Sexism, and Violence
Moderate: Bullying and Classism
Minor: Rape and Alcohol
mikathereviewer's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
The first half of the book was great, but when the second part started I wondered why I even wanted to read this book.
Perhaps I mainly liked the first part as it was a bit annoyingly funny, but not really annoying. And the second part was only annoying. Nothing funny anymore. Especially as I think he r@ped the prostitute. He also didn't leave his old classmates alone and just caused trouble and then got angry for them being pissed off at him. I get it that the character was supposed to be bad, but it just started to annoy me at some point. I mean there was nothing likeable about him and at some point I even started wondering; What was Dostoevsky thinking while writing this? I hate people who romanticise stuff and try to have a free will by taking the free will and freedom of others away by threatening or pushing them, like our nameless protagonist did. Scenes were so chaotic and random that I couldn't but just seem to not care for them anymore. The plot was kinda not there and if it was it also seemed to repeat iself. The same with words like; spiteful and vile. And I hated how there were French words all the time and references to stuff I didn't know. More often than in other Dostoevsky books. Even though I could agree to some things Dostoevsky wrote, most of them were just a 'what the —' or simply a 'no' for me.
The themes were cool, but the implementation of these were horrible. Sorry, but this one by Dostoevsky wasn't for me. Maybe the next.
Perhaps I mainly liked the first part as it was a bit annoyingly funny, but not really annoying. And the second part was only annoying. Nothing funny anymore. Especially as I think he r@ped the prostitute. He also didn't leave his old classmates alone and just caused trouble and then got angry for them being pissed off at him. I get it that the character was supposed to be bad, but it just started to annoy me at some point. I mean there was nothing likeable about him and at some point I even started wondering; What was Dostoevsky thinking while writing this? I hate people who romanticise stuff and try to have a free will by taking the free will and freedom of others away by threatening or pushing them, like our nameless protagonist did. Scenes were so chaotic and random that I couldn't but just seem to not care for them anymore. The plot was kinda not there and if it was it also seemed to repeat iself. The same with words like; spiteful and vile. And I hated how there were French words all the time and references to stuff I didn't know. More often than in other Dostoevsky books. Even though I could agree to some things Dostoevsky wrote, most of them were just a 'what the —' or simply a 'no' for me.
The themes were cool, but the implementation of these were horrible. Sorry, but this one by Dostoevsky wasn't for me. Maybe the next.
Content Warnings
Minor: Rape
saomah5566's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Mental illness, Misogyny, Sexism, and Classism
Moderate: Bullying, Confinement, Alcohol, and Classism
Minor: Rape, Sexual violence, and Suicidal thoughts
olavboi1003's review
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
A really peculiar book. The first forty pages are terrible, and near gibberish. I understand that the existentialist subject matter of the first part was new literary ground at the time Dostoevsky wrote it, but nowadays you would be better of reading Camus' The Outsider or Sartre's Nausea. The second part, though, is a lot better. A lot more propulsive and insightful than the rambling start of the book, and quite dramatically dense. The relationships between the characters tells me as a reader more about existensialism than any number of pages from the opening chapter.
So, quite poorly paced, and I think it is a lot to ask of your readership to sit through forty pages of drivel before you get to the meat of the story, but interesting nonetheless, and undeniably well written towards the end.
So, quite poorly paced, and I think it is a lot to ask of your readership to sit through forty pages of drivel before you get to the meat of the story, but interesting nonetheless, and undeniably well written towards the end.
Content Warnings
Minor: Rape
nikolas_kolinski's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
- Notes from the Underground - review
Dostoevskij is certainly a master when he has to express the deep psychological conflicts and hidden ideas of his characters, but this doesn't mean that he is always also a good writer.
And Notes from the Underground is the perfect example of this.
In fact, I agree with most of the ideas Nabokov expressed in his short review of this literary work at the end of the book.
Notes from the Underground is truly a "concentrate of Dostoevskij", that perfectly captures his philosophical and political ideas, his opinions, his literary tendencies and hints to many leitmotifs that will be used in future books (
However, it's easy to say that the book's merits end there: the content is there, but it is too dense and the style doesn't really have any peculiarity or interesting trait, other than being somewhat chaotic and, again, very dense (in typical Dostoevskian style).
The main character is simply horrible (for no particular logical reason), most of his choices don't really make sense and the plot is basically nonexistent (
Furthermore, the book doesn't even pass the test of time: it might have made sense for a Russian citizen who had read it as soon as it was published, but the modern reader can hardly relate to the societal struggles and difficulties shown in the book, which are strongly related to everything that was happening in Russia at the time Dostoevskij wrote and published this literary work.
In the end, even the best writers can fail and, let's not kid ourselves, if anything resembling failure ever flowed from Dostoevskij's pen, this is definitely it: as beautiful or entertaining as one may find it, it is really just a complete mess.
The pleasure of despair. But then, it is in despair that we find the most acute pleasure, especially when we are aware of the hopelessness of the situation...
...everything is a mess in which it is impossible to tell what's what, but that despite this impossibility and deception it still hurts you, and the less you can understand, the more it hurts.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Emotional abuse
Moderate: Alcohol
Minor: Rape
abbyschafer's review against another edition
tense
slow-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
2.0
Dostoevsky really captures the self-righteous, manic ramblings of someone who has locked himself in a basement for 40 years (derogatory)
Content Warnings
Graphic: Mental illness, Panic attacks/disorders, Sexism, and Classism
Minor: Rape
marjoleinvanderspoel's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Loved the first part, but the second part was major incel vibes. All the things Raskolnikov didn't do wrong, the underground man did (and vice versa tbf since at least he didn't kill anyone). Still, dostoyevsky is great as always.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Rape
nicole_koenigsknecht's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Minor: Rape and Sexual assault
a_ira's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Mental illness, Misogyny, and Toxic relationship
Minor: Rape and Sexism