Scan barcode
A review by nvrrrdie
Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky
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.