Just finished Notes from Underground. Pretty good considering this is my second time reading it. However, Im still having a difficult time discerning its existential qualities from a Dostoevskian perspective. I know he definitely weaves Christian thought into his works, but I'm still at a standstill with reading him as "existentialist".
Anyone here feel similarly?
The Underground Man and his thoughts are not to be taken as facsimiles for Dostoyevsky.
I always imagine that the first half of the novel is just a stream of consciousness of the Underground Man as he is at the dinner with his classmates, which is why it seems so disorganized and contradictory.
As for the existential qualities, you have to see the focus on an individual's experience and especially an individual's suffering; it's kind of a continuation of Kierkegaard in this respect. The style of this and many of Dostoyevsky's earlier works had a profound effect on Kafka it would seem, as both of their works seem to have omnipresent feelings of claustrophobia and helplessness.
Ah that makes sense. What would you have to say about its ideological qualities. In my second reading I was attempting to locate the Underground Man's "ideology" by his "non-ideology". Undoubtedly the paradoxical qualities to his character give rise to this debate, and perhaps even notions of the psyche's capacity for the tragic results of existentialist thought. This seems to be evoked in the seeming disorganization of his (and ultimately Dostoevsky's) prose.
Additionally, what's your take on Liza? She seems to be a catalyst of some sort that also elicits a satire of Romantacism and other veins of sentimental thought.
>it's ideological qualities
I imagine Dostoyevsky is less trying to present a coherent ideology than just the method of thought for a large group of people whom he believes have been ignored in literature up to that point (hence the footnote at the very beginning of the novel).
>notions of the psyche's capacity for the tragic results of existentialist thought
I don't think this was focused much on a direct criticism of existentialism itself (after all, Dostoyevsky stuck with it until the end) but merely of the conditions that seem to lead to it.
>What do you make of Liza
Dostoyevsky tends to use female characters as purer manifestations of ideas than the male characters. I imagine Liza was a sketch of Sonia from C&P as both seem to represent a ind of purity found in a disgusting and very material situation. I think she was meant to be a serious character.
It's interesting to note that (iirc) the only other female presences in the book is the mention of Cleopatra torturing her slave girls
ITT: actual discussion going on
Is this a dream.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm referring to Althusser's theory of ideology when talking about Notes (not to bring in theory that people have or have not potentially read as a kind of abstraction) I think that the text itself, as well as the Underground Man, embodies the paradox presented to us by Althusser in the very notion that there is an "outside to ideology". We can observe very explicit and illusive motivations that dictate the actions of out anti-protagonist in a way that puts him both outside and working within the confines of ideology proper. I think that the seemingly liminal space that our anti-protagonist occupies, as well as certain veins of existentialist though, speak towards philosophical musings regarding the nature of ideology.
This is just my take and attempted reading of the work.
Thanks for the info on Dostoevsky's female characters in other works. I definitely agree with your take. What's your favorite of his works?
Would it be a correct interpretation of the first chapter if it is there to make the Underground Man an unriliable narrator? If not, then what is the purpose of the first chapter? Although I did indeed enjoy reading it, I found it quite useless compared to the second chapter.
>I imagine Dostoyevsky is less trying to present a coherent ideology than just the method of thought for a large group of people whom he believes have been ignored in literature up to that point
Exactly this, there is no overarching point to it, it's about the wonderfully displayed self tormenting way of thinking, disjointed and maze like. He mocks himself (and other writers) humorously, it's a jab at himself.
So it is not an existentialist novel then?
A significant part of his self inflicted torment and mockery incorporates the existential, he often turns insignificant small events into large existential thoughts for instance.
I'm saying he never intended it to be a solvable puzzle that adds up to a clear complete picture, just the opposite.
Thanks for the answer. And yeah I got that the the entire novel is conflicting itself on purpose. Especially the first part.
The first chapter sets the tone and structure of the whole first half. It's organized as a conversation between the Underground Man and some theoretical correspondent, where we only get the Underground Man's half. In between each sentence it helps to imagine what a typical response to the previous sentence was. For example, 'I am a sick man' -> 'what do you have' -> 'no, I am a wicked man'
what bullshit. He's talking to himself, he literally even says so in the end of the first half. He's writing a diary, he doesn't know if anyone will read it.
It is a lonely man writing, why do you have to overanalyze it? you are killing the beauty of it.
He's writing a novel. He is not talking to anybody.
Sadly it doesnt get bumped at all though.
I'm not saying he's talking to anyone, just that it's structured as if he were
I read an annotated version of NfU, and the first half is apparently an attack on some forgotten school of Russian Idealism that was popular at the time. I'm probably getting this wrong, but it was like premodernism- believing that if people acted wholly like machines, society would be a utopia.
It's existential because the Underground Man states that while he knows he's an utter loser and living a life that'd be considered worthless by society, ultimately he finds it meaningful solely because he has the choice to live his life of suffering.
>The Underground Man and his thoughts are not to be taken as facsimiles for Dostoyevsky.
I disagree, they can be taken as an example on Dostoyevsky's view on both positivist Reductionism and Utopianism, or a combination of the two
I found it hard to disagree with the protagonist in his views on consciousness and free will, and found it very interesting to have this explained not by some hero-figure or some wise man but by a fundamentally weak, cowardly bureaucrat
About the utopia, yes, I think you have the right idea. He was essentially predicting Marxism and Communism and preemptively denouncing them.
At least that's my understanding of it.
They're criticisms that Dostoyevsky would have probably agreed with but given the lack of religious justification, it's hard to say they're *his* views
I think it was more aimed at any of the primarily materialistic world views, what with all the focus on the "rational man" that appears in a lot of economics
True. It was more of an incidental prediction. And you're right about the rational man. We can be rational but we aren't purely rational beings.
It's an absolutely brilliant book.
please keep this thread up, I'll be done with the book by tomorrow
it takes a long time for threads to be archived on Veeky Forums
How far are you along right now?
I'm on chapter 10. I meant the discussion should continue and not die in 20 posts.
Holy shit a serious discussion on Veeky Forums . . . . It has been like a month since this last happened.
Not to perpetuate the meme but Jordan Peterson spoke about this book along with some Nietzsche and Kierkegaard in the lecture below. I found it to be one of his best lectures yet. Maybe someone else can get something from it too.
I loved this book
To me Dostoyevsky was talking to everyone firstly, but secondly to the masses- the poor, in particular. The Underground Man as a character to me represents the man in all of us who contradicts himself at every turn.
I felt that D. was making the point that all of our actions contradict our past actions. We cannot have a consistency in being. The Underground Man writes this- he contradicts himself quite blatantly multiple times in paragraph after paragraph, especially at the beginning. Whether this is because we are human or because we are beings is irrelevant and never mentioned.
Nonetheless it stands to speak for the masses, who often feel that every little thing they do drives them farther away from what they used to do or have done before (and maybe their identity). D. Hopes to show that even the most ordinary of us- a government clerk- suffer from contradiction.
And so this contradiction is normal. I felt that D. was suggesting that we should attempt to not contradict ourselves (evident in the coldness of the UG man to Liza- he didnt have to be so mean), but recognize that despite our attempts to not be contradictory, we will always be so.
I detect too much presence of “What is the author trying to say?” and reduction of books into pulpits of various heights in this thread.
Great authors give their counterexamples to popular delusions in their own natural art forms, and only mention specific theories by name to underline the difference. In famous scenes from “Brothers Karamazov”, Snegiryov doesn't just *analyze* himself vocally, he *proves* the argument about irrationality by *doing* — and by reliving that we understand how it logically follows from his nature.
(Obviously, he's a bit more than just a rhetorical example.)
>I detect too much presence of “What is the author trying to say?”
I think most people here are just trying to come to a general understanding of the book. Is trying to understand what the author said wrong?
>Is trying to understand what the author said wrong?
Not that guy but contemporary literary theory tells us to analyze the text itself and not bring in biographical information about the author (see "Death of the Author" by Barthes, "What is an Author?" by Foucault, etc.). This is, of course, one of many way of looking at a text. Read the theory and see for yourself if you agree. Personally, I like the idea of disregarding or minimizing authorial intent. This opens up lots of space for interesting new interpretations.
For example, let's say you are reading a feminist interpretation of Hamlet. Probably not what Shakespeare "intended" but if it is interesting and textually supported, do we want to rule it out as "wrong"?
He's talking about deeper stuff than this in a lot of paragraphs, and this is not the point of the book as a whole, but I agree that it is a thing
He's talking about the way we live life. The underground man is just an extreme example that Dostoyevski gives us to ilustrate a point: we are not really living life because we're too busy thinking it. (Reread the last 3 pages more or less, he explains this).
To play devils advocate, is it not helpful deriving meaning from works of art knowing the context in which the work was created? Can it be useful to know that (im making this up but play along) Nietzsche wrote in his diary that his goal was to purge the world of Christianity, and that Nietzsche imagined his cry for the Death of God to be a cry to end Christianity?
Surely if we assumed to know this about Nietzsche, his Death of God phrase could be colored differently.
The authors intent is always irrelevant to any work of art- its not as if the author has a perfect clear cut description of what it is they are intending to communicate. They might have a vague idea but it is never crystal clear. Even if it was crystal clear, they still suffer from Wittgensteins problem- namely, our language is always at least somewhat misleading in its ability to reflect experience.
It seems to me that the contextual clues (possible clues that could suggest artistic intent) that come attached to the art form can and should color your perception of the art itself. This doesnt mean we should need these clues- rather if they are offered, it is just merely another piece of information to use to derive meaning from that work of art.
So to me I see the year of publishing, the authors name, their habits, life story, all the details of their life, the world around them etc, as part of a larger work of art that encompasses the book they wrote, or the music they made, the sculpture they created, etc
Besides, as far as meaning is concerned, one can easily use Phillip K Dicks' A Scanner Darkly as an artistic reason to do heroin, Despite the blatant epilogue that spells it out, hey heres a bunch of fuckwads i knew who did heroin and hate their lives now, so dont do it.
Per this rant i suggest we cannot know artistic intent, nor can the author. I also suggest that disregarding authorial intent attempts to solve a problem that isnt a problem. Lastly i propose that the attempt to disregard artistic intent disrupts the wider intention of deriving meaning from a work of art.
I'm going through the MacAndrew translation right now, how does it compare to the P&V version
>Reading Russian-English translations.
Step up your game
So if we are looking for meaning in a work of art why ignore the artist as a source, right?
>the first half is apparently an attack on some forgotten school of Russian Idealism that was popular at the time.
This is true. More or less the entire novel is an attack on this philosophy. Underground Man is contradicting and flawed for this purpose. He is not perfect but derrives pleasure from life. Or that is at least how I interpreted the novel.
Please correct me if you think I am wrong.
So is it Dostoevsky or Dostoyevsky?
It's Дocтoéвcкий
But either translation can be used.
e in Russian is pronounced as Ye. It should be Yev not ev but both are often used.
I'm the user you replied to. Of course, you are free to bring in historical context, authorial intent, etc. if you want to. That's your prerogative. The key insight is to realize that this is simply one way of interpreting a text (and should not necessarily be privileged over others, as it often is). What often happens is authorial intent is invoked to void alternate readings of a text. This is why certain approaches to literary criticism (e.g. deconstruction) are said to read "against" a text.
>Lastly i propose that the attempt to disregard artistic intent disrupts the wider intention of deriving meaning from a work of art.
Agree to disagree on this.
The way Dost jokingly trashes "intellectuals" and idealists reminds me of those "How will he ever recover?" Veeky Forums posts.
The contradictions that operates between the narrator's various thoughts and actions seemed symbolical to me of the contradiction in trying to combine or fit together the rigorously deterministic laws mentioned and hated by the Man from the Underground and free will of which he admits and supports the existence.
I would say the Man from the Underground has not performed the ''leap'' yet (the existentialist leap of faith). He is stuck between two antagonistic worldviews and cannot fully choose one or the other, so he becomes the ''Man from the Underground''. This is why, I think, he can heroically decry those deterministic laws and yet apply the same kind of deterministic thinking to his condition, essentially saying he cannot do anything to get of it. I think we can observe the same struggle when he loathes and hates himself, yet consider himself vastly superior to most people, and especially intellectually ; and also when he tells Liza the glories of genuine love and afterwards treats like the prostitute she is...
We don't really know what happens to the narrator, if he gets out of it or not, probably not. Even if we can postulate the awfulness of the man's worldview from the awfulness of his life, I don't think we can deduce that Dostoyevsky is proposing doing the opposite of what the Man from the Underground is doing as a solution. Rather, I think the novel really affirms the existentialist anguish... (Sartre's angoisse)
Someone redpill me on the free will argument. I'm pretty sure I understand it but... I just find it completely unconvincing as an actually argument for free will and against determinism. Basically "I'm free because I'm capable of doing something that goes against my own interests." Arguably by doing something "against your own interest," you're doing something IN your own interest by trying to prove a point. And such an argument also has nothing to say about determinism at a higher (e.g. cosmic) level
From my understanding, the Man from the Underground isn't trying to disprove determinism as a whole, rather he is attacking evo psych stuff and darwinian determinism (man is an animal and acts according to his rational self-interest of that of the specie).
Stabbing your arm for the sole purpose of affirming your own free-will, by caprice, cannot really be explained using that kind of worldview, even if you engage in rigmarolic explanations.
Dostoyevsky also argues that defining what even constitutes an advantage is difficult, and some things do not fit at all in even all of the classifications. If you can't define an advantage, then you can't say if man acts out whether something is advantageous to him or not, and if you can't say that, then you can't make a claim as to whether or not he is determined to act out according to self-interest.
''And all this for most triffling reasons, which one would think were hardly worth mentioning: namely, because man has always and everywhere, whoever he was, loved to act as he wants and not in the least as his reason and personal advantage dictates; it is possible to desire against one's own best interest, and sometimes one positively should (this is my idea).'' Notes from the Underground p.26
Suppose a supercomputer were to mathematically determine the situation in which you would be at your happiest possible (your best interest) and then place you in that situation. It would be possible for you to go against the computer's idea and leave that situation and settle for something else, perhaps by whim or something else. I could imagine many doing it, and maybe even myself. Clearly this is a problem for determinism. There are many attacks made against determinism by using this kind of thought experiment with a supercomputer or an all knowing demon-thing.
If you really want to see determinism getting btfoed, you should read other existentialists.
You see, “What is the author trying to say?” is a universal educational method that turns literature into a list of platitudes (that can be easily converted to tests, and so on). You should know Nabokov never missed the chance to attack that.
Ah, the idea about “interesting new interpretations” is very common today. Everyone is equal, everyone has an opinion, praise the diversity of the opinions, etc., etc. What is not common is understanding that even the most extreme — seemingly — interpretations have very little, if any, originality, that their authors themselves have been formed by voluminous force of old culture, and that even the language and the concepts they use have to be shared by many to make the discussion possible.
''Interpreting'' a text says far more about the theory or the lens you're using than the text itself. Allowing this sort of literary criticism devalues the work of the author and ultimately relativize it, it generates meaning where there is possibly none at all.
A literary text, and especially a great one, is a construct of many things : the author's intent, his life and experiences, the things he read and the social context, the objective content of the text; which is in my opinion the most important aspect (the prose, the story, etc...) and finally your own interpretation of that. A good literary critique should reflect all of this.
I am especially opposed to the ''the author is dead'' meme because more often than not, lit crit texts that utilizes this method could have been essays and it would have changed nothing; the text is just a useful tool to push some political agenda or the author's (the lit crit author) own...
There's nothing quite disgusting like seeing, for example, some shit critique feminist analysis of Shakespeare where she goes through major plays and never mention the author's talent or the beauty of the context and instead spends the majority of the essay on writing empty sentences, gratuitously cites foucault, derrida, deleuze, guattari and then end the whole thing with some idiotic message relating to masculinity, whiteness or fascism.
I'm reading Brothers Karamazov now, haven't read this one yet.
Should I continue with the Pevear translation or what. I'm 80 pages in
Thoughts on the translation from Oxford?
yeah, we get it- you like harold bloom
U didnt provide an argument for why other methods of interpretation are wrong, you just disagreed and wrote a lot, read ur post again. I could say feminist theory is great for certain reasons and nothing in ur post tells me what is fundamentally bad about my way of viewing lit
Peaver is fine
It's not that it's wrong. It's that you're not talking about the text- you're talking about feminist theory.
Where do I start with Dostoevsky?
P&V only *look fine*. It is "universally praised" by non-linguists the same way teenage pop band is "universally praised" on TV channels. The critics, actually, have been on alert since their first books came out.
Old article: thinkaloud.ru
Recent one: nybooks.com
There are many reasons for people, even honest and caring ones, to jump on their bandwagon, but I still don't understand why those who will never listen to Justin Bieber — with all the billions invested in him — are willing to capitulate so easy in this case.
His detectives are most accessible.
Notes from the Underground or The Gambler
Also xixvek.wordpress.com
youre not really playing devils advocate here, you are actually arguing about biographical and social circumstances of literature's production, which is different from authorial intent. you actually play advocate for 'death of the author' argument more than you are against it
I agree with this since The Master and Margarita is supposedly a shitty translation. However, I disagree that ALL of Pevear's translations are bad. Let's not get hysterical.
I read Crime and Punishment in Pevear's translation it was phenomenal. Brothers Karamazov is apparently their first translated text, I believe, and was very meticulously done (they've gotten lazier since).
This article gave me a newfound appreciation for Pevear, but I am still skeptical at times.
The Double