Wtf is this?

wtf is this?

i finished today but i didn't got a thing. Can someone explain? What is the meaning of this book?

Sorry for my monkey english

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OFVK4dptbPM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>What is this?
It's Notes from Underground by Dostojevskij

>I didn't got a thing
Re-read or check wikipedia

The "meaning" of the first part seems blindingly obvious, you should understand it just having read it.
The "meaning" of the second part is debatable, but it certainly revolves around the main character and his relation to morality.

You're an idiot. There's no context required. Re-read or get a cambridge companion.

Are you asian? If you are, don't worry about it. Western lit probs isnt for you

As it's explained by Dostoevsky in a footnote on the first page, the underground man represents a sort of intellectual of that time period. Dost was trying to explain how destructive some of these ideas which were just emerging were. For instance, he at one point says that there will be a day when we will fit all of morality into a neat table, this is a critique on scientism of his day. Our protagonist, through his early alienation from his friends and society, attempts to rationalize his position and ends up in an even worse position, completely convinced there is no hope for humanity or himself. In the end it is the most profound opportunity for love that he misses and that's what makes it a tragedy. Our protagonist realized just a moment too late what he has done, trying to find her in the snow he is hopeless. I think the point Dost was trying to make is to not become stuck and cursed rationalizing the tragedies regarding our human condition rather than trying to move past them with a better understanding of humanity itself.

Doestoyevsky literally spells everything out explicitly. If you can't get this book you should probably quit reading forever.

youtube.com/watch?v=OFVK4dptbPM

One of the few times I would redirect someone to a youtube video

ppl will never be happy
ppl love to make shit up to get upset about

dont be an asshole like the underground guy

Read Dostoyevsky's The idiot, you will find it relatable

Now that has me wondering, are there any good essays/analyses of the themes in The Idiot vs. Crime and Punishment/Notes

Jesus this borad makes me cringe. None of you have said anything about what you think the book means.

>The "meaning" of the first part seems blindingly obvious, you should understand it just having read it.

>tfw read the first part 3 times already and have no idea what the fuck underground man is saying

I think I'm finally realizing literature just isn't for me.

That's because the first part very clearly spells out a response to a certain kind of progressivist rationalism/scientism. There shouldn't be a problem understanding what it means because it's not hidden in any way.

It's reasonable to conclude the second and first part are connected. But there are infinite ways to make that connection. Maybe the Underground Man is a sort of personification of the kind of chaos-as-resistance that the first part claims would be the result of a life fully and completely structured along rationalist lines. Maybe the Underground Man is just that, stuck in a dead-end, boring, neatly ordered life that he aims to set on fire by constantly sabotaging himself with irrational behaviour.
Maybe he represents a sort of nihilist answer to what's described in the first part. I don't really care, the second part doesn't seem like heavy-handed philosophical/political symbolism to me, and Dostoyevsky doesn't usually shy away from heavy-handedness. Just read part 1 on face value and part 2 as a story

>this borad makes me cringe

>progressivist rationalism/scientism.

I don't know what this is

>>tfw read the first part 3 times already and have no idea what the fuck underground man is saying

Man, the first part read like an essay, it is very simple.
How old are you?

Most essays make sense and have points and stuff. The book just feels like rambling.

I'm 26

Definitely shouldn't be reading reactionary lit then

Good bait

In case it's not, this is how I see it after having read the book a few times: The Underground Man formulates a reply to a certain political/philosophical ideology. At its core, this ideology holds that it's possible to achieve a completely "rational" mode of societal organization that would then result in the innate potential for rational behaviour of its members to come to fruition. This society would enable everyone to act in a rational way, therefore eliminating everything that's bad or destructive about humanity. The Underground Man claims that this is impossible, and that instead of a hidden rational being waiting to be freed, human nature essentially contains a destructive kind of chaos that is intent on freedom, not rationality.

>The book just feels like rambling.
It's called passion, the whole thing is a raw burst of honest emotion, great novella

It's explicitly described in the book, at least the kind that the Underground Man sees.

To keep it simple, you could say that what I clumsily termed "progressivist rationalism/scientism" is just the notion that mankind should constantly strive to move towards a more mathematical approach to personal and societal life. It sees as desirable a state of things where ultimately it's possible to calculate what is "best for everyone" and then impose that. This state of things would of course be impossible to argue against rationally. Therefore, the opposing position can only be irrationality, which is what the underground man embodies.

>tfw can't understand your explanation

I'm had it I'm done with literature

That's right.
If you know Dostoyevsky's thought and biography, you can confirm that.
The ideologies that the underground hero is going against are mainly socialism and anarchism, these are the "ideas of steel"(I think he uses this term in the novel, but it might be from another one).

stop baiting me into these shitty explanations, i feel like i'm even dumber for not being able to articulate what i think about the book

Genuinely not bait I just started getting into reading last year and I just started getting into literature last month.

That's fine then. You don't have to deal with this right away. It's okay to appreciate Notes from Underground as just a literary work.

Are you a good reader or do you get distracted easily?

>Are you a good reader or do you get distracted easily?

I'm a fine reader, I can usually get through a book a week if it's genre shit, but when it comes to classics I just get bored. I only forced myself through the first part of Notes 3 times because it's so short.

Surely you've heard about the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Or you've at least read the news and have a very general idea of what leftist politics is about. Taking wealth from the rich, giving it to the poor, building schools and infrastructure to establish a "fair" society where "everyone has a chance at success". Just think about this, and then think about what the most radical form of that sort of thinking would be. Then you have an idea of what the Underground Man is replying to.

If you can't understand his explanations, it means that you don't know English or that you should definitely consider something else for you.

Then start with easy books, you'll be enticed into reading more difficult stuff at a later point.

Have you read any of Hermann Hesse's works? Start with Demian, then read Siddartha (or the other way around), then continue from there.

basically the dude was a narcissist with dreams of grandeur who wanted to cre8 a herd of his own but couldnt since he was an insect irl. therefore he got sad n mad n very hostile too
oh, and the first part was basically an autistic rant about "muh freedom", "existential" boredom, so to say, and how awful self-consciousness is.
(as far as i remember, i read it long ago)
btw the underground man's view of love is pretty interesting, but being the lawfag i am i cannot find it but a bit repugnant too

I saw the book as an argument against romanticism.

It's based on my diary de su

Don't worry, Notes from Underground isn't exactly something you can blamed for not picking it up and "geting it" immediately divorced from context.

Why? Romanticism wasn't overwhelmingly focused on the rational and achieving a utopia through reason

>how could anyone not understand this basic stuff. This is like kindergarten

Not everyone is as smart as you or I. Fuck off

>Most essays make sense and have points and stuff
>The book just feels like rambling
Considering that essays was a literary invention almost purely created to facilitate rambling I not sure how familiar you are with the style.
Also it did have points, ones which were explicitly outlined in the text.

>when you finish the book a you realize that you are following the same path of that cunt

I almost cried with Notes from Underground

>dosto is an orthodox chrisitan
>opposes progressivism/rationalism/scientism
>writes Notes from Underground
>the protagonist also hates progressivism/rationalism/scientism
>protagonist portrayed as a neurotic immoral fuckup
>so is dostoevsky critiquing himself or what??

t. brainlet

understand the character psychologically like this: he didnt get loved in childhood and now has developed two conflicting desires to compensate for that: the desire to subordinate others and to give and receive love. he can never be truly intimate and friendly with the prostitute without feeling like he is giving up control of the situation, so he turns her away. he wants to be amicable with his school friends, but he wants to establish himself superior to them, etc. this tortures him because every attempt to solve one side of his needs ends up hurting the other side, so he is paralyzed and is tortured. he has grown to love his cage, and he is a slave to this position. he also praises freedom and whim but does not realize he is actually a slave to this position. the only way for him to become unchained is to relinquish his resentment and desire for mastery and to embrace humanity.

NO DOSTOEVSKY DOES NOT SPELL EVERYTHING OUT, THE UNDERROUND MAN IS AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR! ALSO YOU NEED SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE 1840-1860s RUSSIA TO UNDERSTAND THE CRITICISM OF SOCIAL ISSUES HE IS SHOWING.

>THE UNDERROUND MAN IS AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR
He is unreliable but thoroughly transparent. The work wasn't designed for there to be a mystery about anything. So that while he as a narrator is unreliable Dostovesky as the author spells everything out for the reader. Also his unreliability has no bearing on the first part of the book that spells everything out.

>ALSO YOU NEED SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE 1840-1860s RUSSIA TO UNDERSTAND THE CRITICISM OF SOCIAL ISSUES HE IS SHOWING
No you don't though it wouldn't be amiss. One needs to be aware of a shift in public consciousness, especially among the left that came about during the enlightenment. But knowing some things about the enlightenment is hardly niche information, especially with how little of it you need to know to understand what is happening.
If you are talking about the later parts of the book after the monologue then anyone but autist would understand how weird the main character is without knowing anything about Russia.

its by far his worst book

he spells everything out, but you definitely have to make inferences: like in about how he contradicts himself, etc

Being an edgy faggot in my late teens through early twenties, I understood intuitively where the Underground was coming from. His behavior is based on reacting to people's prediction of his future actions and behavior (which all exist in his own meta-narrative) based on his current actions and behavior, and he wants to prove their predictions wrong for satisfaction. It's like when someone tells you "you are a failure, and you will always be a failure," you will actually end up trying to prove that person wrong, however. Your motivation for success is rooted in spite, instead of self fulfillment. I can honestly relate with the Underground Man from the maddening obsession with the officer and desire to bump into him to prove your equality to him, to the dinner scene to prove his intellectual superiority. Not only did he believe every person he met was stupid and inferior to him, he wanted to make them realize their stupidity while recognizing his genius and greatness as an illuminating light and font of wisdom. Reading Notes was like having a mirror held up to you, showing you that dark, miserable, and pitiful side of yourself for what it really is, while begging to make it stop.He misses his chance on love for telling her he is the only decent man in the world who can treat her right, and everybody else will treat you horribly, and make you suffer until the end of your hopelessly naive and pitiful existence. So, you are better being with me. This is literally how "beta male" incels think. I no longer agree with them nor pity them, but instead feel some sense of compassion for them now. Notes from Underground really kicked my ass, and I can honestly say I am the better for having read it.