Why did you make me read this?

>It wasn't my lack of reading comprehension as to why I thought it was 2edgy4u

>Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.

>Edgy

Woah there watch yourself with those 2014 buzzwords. We're calling each-other cucks these days.

cucks is early 2016, it is pseuds now

pseuds is a 2013 buzzword

I think pseud is more of a Veeky Forums exclusive. With luck we can spread it once cuck starts to lose its bite.

I haven't read it in six or so years and I don't have a copy with me so I don't know how right I'm going to get this.

The character has some ideas that are similar to that of Dostoevsky, namely his skepticism of ideas like progress and his criticisms of the optimism of the enlightenment. However the character doesn't have Dostoevsky's Orthodox faith to fill the space left by what most people fill with enlightenment ideas. He is this existential nihilist who has developed this idea of self making. As in he knows he is an awful person, but he has made a conscious, reasoned decision to be so. The book shows that such ideas are ridiculous. The foundation of a person isn't this Sartrean free will but rather God. I forget if that last bit is actually in the book or if that is me taking what Dostoevsky thought outside of the book and using that as a lens to interpret it.

good posts.

Edit: I was probably a little mean when I said you failed the test. I would like to add that to call the book 2edgy4u gives the impression that you misunderstand the level of authorial authority the main character has. I do often see the opposite reaction where people boil the book down to 'this guy is a loser, don't be like him'. The way the character interacts with Dostoevsky's ideas are complex but the parts that I imagine are the basis for you calling it edgy are not the ones actually being endorsed.

i liked crime and punishment, so i went to the book store to buy more dosto, and found notes from underground. i loved it

The reason it seemed 2edgy4u (probably not the best way to describe it) to me is that appeared to try to shock the reader by implying that even though the character isn't real there are people exactly like with the same thought and here's some very frowned upon stuff he does and oooh look how shocking he is, look at how shocking his thoughts are.

Note: I am not an authority on books, I'm just stating my opinion and what it meant to me. I'm up to learning something new always.

>there are people exactly like with the same thought and here's some very frowned upon stuff he does and oooh look how shocking he is, look at how shocking his thoughts are.
What's edgy about honesty?

It didn't come across as honesty to me, it came across as just purposely trying to agitate people.

shut the fuck up, oh wow WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW

yeah that book is a terrible description of psychosis, the lamentations of the inner r9kedgelord. Fuck dosto for that lame scene with the sex worker, as well.

I was disappointed, too. I don't care about the edginess too much but the writing is so fucking horrible.

His speech to Zverkhov is absolutely legendary. Definitely my favorite part.

I think it's really entertaining in its own right as a character study. It seems also to be a reflection on how a person would be if he genuinely applied modernistic principles to his life, but was an actual human being, as opposed to a glorified utility-seeking machine. It also has some great /r9k/ themes about petty revenge and isolation and savior fantasies and women.

holy...i want more...

Why does this board always discuss the same fucking books?

Fun fact: Nietzsche actually liked this book a lot, although he read it in French.

People in that age range likely don't have enough life experience to see how real of a character the Underground man is, either personally or by watching others go through it.

The character is a commentary on western counter culture, positivism, and perfectionism all at once.

He's supposed to be pitiful. The first have of the book is him making himself out to be some all-knowing super-villain, then when you see him in action in the second half it should make you cringe.

Because it takes too long to read to take anonymous advice online about books and people can't talk about more obscure ones. In the vast majority of cases, if you want to talk about books, your options are classics or YA.

>I certainly couldn't of
>of

100% cringe from concentrate
it will never find acceptance

>Reading P&V

I thought it was a good recommendation. Made me discover i don't wanna read one of the most important authors in a non painful way.