Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

This is the SPOILERS thread for our March 2015 Old School Read of Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. If you're sensitive to spoilers (I sure am!), please use this topic instead.

Do not read this thread if you want to avoid spoilers!

Happy reading! :-)

I read this for another group last year. It was a lot of work, but really interesting - and extremely influential.

One particular section of it was immediately familiar as the inspiration of Yevgeny Zamyatin's We - which then inspired 1984 and through that the rest of the modern dystopias. So, if Zamyatin is the grandfather of the dystopic genre, Dostoyevsky is surely its great grandfather. Or at least its great great uncle.

And nothing will ever convince me that Kafka hadn't read Notes from Underground before writing The Metamorphosis.

Melanti wrote: "And nothing will ever convince me that Kafka hadn't read Notes from Underground before writing The Metamorphosis."

I thought of the similarities between the two books myself. Thank you for making the observation.

I just finished the book. Having just read Virginia Woolf (The Waves, Mrs. Dalloway, A Room of One's Own--all of which I totally adored), I thought I was ready for every type of stream of consciousness writing (well, even if this was not exactly that, it showed the intricacies--too much of it--of the character's mind). Am not so sure why Dostoevsky wrote this the way he did. This was my first Dostoevsky read and I think I should have started with The Brothers Karamazov or something. True that it brings to light some often-ignored existentialist issues and that it presents a unique look at existence and the world, it wasn't my cup of tea, even if I finished it. It did get interesting about 40% of the way through, and by that point, I had to get to the end so I know what happens (the audiobook helped too).

I have similar feelings. I struggled with the first part of this book and didn't like how it was constructed, with ramblings to himself. Things improved more as I read on and by the end I quite enjoyed it, but this didn't make up for the earlier section. It reminds me of something else, but I can't quite put my finger on what...maybe Camus.

How many sections did you guys have? I only had two and I didn't have the peasant-committing-murder one.

I downloaded from Proj Gutenberg. It had two sections.

I don't recall any murders though.

This is in the description

"From the primitive peasant who kills without understanding that he is destroying life to the anxious antihero".

I got the anxious antihero but I was curious about the peasant.

This book was definitely easier to follow in book 2, than the "rambling" thoughts of book 1. Incidentally, after I read this, I made a failed attempt to read Mrs. Dalloway and had to abandon. Maybe I'll retry later.

I don't know much about dystopia (though I see if frequently mentioned here at GR) or existantialism. Perhaps if had an understanding I might have a different view of this book.

I read Crime and Punishment last year with this group and I have noticed that the protagonists of that book as well as this one, each have unbalanced or disturbed minds by 21 C standards. Unlike Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, UGM (Underground Man), the protagonist in this book, has no connections to either family or friends. Though Raskolnikov has these connections (view spoiler)[IMO he treats all the people who care about him very badly (hide spoiler)]. In any case, Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a master at creating a protagonist who is disconnected from reality, though UGM and Roskolnikov and the two books where they are featured are both very different.

At some point in this book, mention is made that the nameless protagonist is an orphan and I thought that this possibly had a bearing on his actions that he chronicled in book 2. I was left with the impression that he was not kindly treated by his childhood care-givers. However, I read this book as a downloaded eBook which makes it difficult to refer to previous parts of the book. And I would have liked to have reread this section that mentions him as an orphan and describes his experiences as a school-boy.

I think that UGMs problem is that he has no one in his life with whom he is able to have a reciprocal caring relationship (friendship etc.) or to "matter" to someone or belong somewhere.

I see his shudderingly painful interactions with people described in book 2 as his poorly executed attempts to make a much-needed social connections. Each of these attempts to matter or connect with with people inspired my pity.

The October 2024 Revisit the Shelf book is Notes from the Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

I will be reading this from a physical book that contains several novellas.

I found this pdf to download if you are looking for a version of pdf:

https://www.planetpublish.com/wp-cont...

It is 203 pages long.

There are more than one audiobooks of this text on YouTube. This version has the text rolling on the screen as the narrator reads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mym35...

Just finished the book. I must be one of the exceptions, but I found Part 1 much more readable & interesting than Part 2. The latter is so much more about him living his life, and I just don’t find him at all enjoyable.

I read this in 2020, so it's a reread for me too. I remember finding it bleak.

Saw this as a group read and thought I give it a try. It's my second ever from this author and the main criteria for me is it's short. Not the best motive, I know. Gotten through the first part and found it almost comical. Tongue in cheek aimed at some group that he doesn't seem to agree with. But, every now and then he'd drop a line that sounded more serious. Wonder if was written about the time the upper class salons etc were meeting?

Glad this wasn't my first shot with this author, but have to say he can do some
remarkable character building. Finished this now. if this is a statement piece, then the author just destroyed a few ideas that irked him. And probably if the targets figured it out, he upset them little. Arguing theory is different from living it, or "it looked good on paper".

What a basement dweller.

Gini wrote: "Saw this as a group read and thought I give it a try. It's my second ever from this author and the main criteria for me is it's short. Not the best motive, I know. Gotten through the first part and..."

I think "short" is a valid reason to read or not read. I love short stories because they let my try out an author and then decide if I am willing to invest the time in a longer read.

That's true. This one displays his talent well, but it's not an easy, novelish type read. I really expected more of a storyline.

This was my third read of this and unfortunately for me, I come away with a worse impression each time and I believe it is because of the translations and lack of clear understandable annotations that could help us understand this novel as far removed as we are from it today. In it our narrator is commenting relative to several philosophical and psychological ideas current at the time and without clearer explication, I feel the novel is just a testament to the narrator and narrative technique. that is not enough to carry the novel for me anymore.

I started rereading this tonight and yeah, this isn't a pleasant book for me either. I had the good fortune of having a Russian Orthodox priest for my theology thesis director, and not simply that, he was a translator and well-read in Russian lit (his wife was a direct descendent of Gogol even). So we had quite a few conversations about Russian lit during my thesis meetings (instead of talking about my boring thesis).

One thing I do think is interesting about this novel is that it's broken into 2 time periods--the 1860s and then the 1840s. In Dostoevsky's own life, he had been sent to the labor camps in Siberia in the 1850s for "subversive" activities. His imprisonment had a profound impact on him, and after that he became more focused on a rational approach to morality rooted in Orthodox Christianity than the more secular idealism that got him into trouble when he was younger. I think this novel is in a way Dostoevsky admonishing himself for his younger self's views while also trying to make sense of the less-than-admirable humanity he witnessed in the labor camps through this sense of morality.

That said, this novel is more interesting to me as a historical philosophical text by an influential 19th century Russian author than as a work of literature that I want to read out of my love for literature. As I wrote in my 2022 GR review of this when I reread it last: It's a dreary and joyless walk through foundational 19th century philosophical and moral ideas about human nature and society, ideas that would become very influential, told by a particularly unlikeable narrator.

CJ wrote: "I started rereading this tonight and yeah, this isn't a pleasant book for me either. I had the good fortune of having a Russian Orthodox priest for my theology thesis director, and not simply that,..."

I agree. I picked up the Norton Critical Edition, translated into English by Michael R. Katz and will give that a read next though not in time for this discussion. I am hoping it will give further insights into the philosophical ideas of the time to which Dostoevsky alludes.

I've read this book a couple of times and thought I'd share some insight that might be helpful in figuring out Dostoyevsky's thought process. Notes from the Underground is actually the last book in a three-way conversation between Ivan Turgenev, Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Turgenev wrote Fathers and Sons but Chernyshevsky despised Turgenev's portray of the "new man" and with his novel What Is to Be Done? strove to disprove Turgenev's ideas with his own ideas of how reason and ideals should work within man for the perfection of society. Dostoyevsky with Notes from the Underground strives to shatters Chernyshevsky's philosophy with quite a brilliant answer. So it is very difficult to understand Notes if you haven't read the other three novels because you don't know to what Dostoyevsky is responding. You have the answer but not the question. To put it another way, you're sort of "reading blind."

I'd encourage everyone to read all three novels but it's also extremely helpful to have some background on what was happening within Russian society at that time (and also the influences coming from outside it). It's alot of reading and digging but in the end, very worth it!

I’m reading Notes from Underground for the third time and from reading comments above, it seems like my impression of the work is more favourable than a lot of people here!

I read it as a cautionary tale on the perils of passivity, inaction and voluntarily isolating oneself from the outside world and people- proclaiming you know everything about human nature and all people despite almost never interacting with people- hallmark qualities of the maladjusted neurotic.

I can certainly see a lot of some of the worst aspects of my character in the narrator, although I do feel I have taken a lot of steps in the right direction compared with when I read this a couple of years ago.

I think the narrator’s plight does not solely stem from how he feels at the time of his writing. I think the crux of what keeps him there is contained in the quote in chapter II, “consequently there is not only nothing you can do to change yourself, but there is simply nothing to do at all”. My belief is that he could alleviate at least some of his suffering with a commitment to action and belief he can change. I heard a saying in an alcohol support group once that has stuck with me that “there is no cure for unwillingness”. Having spent a few years in various kinds of support groups for people struggling with addiction and or mental illness, I’ve met many, many people who exist on planes which are of a far blacker shade than that of the narrator but the crucial turning point towards recovery and a better life has to begin with the belief they can change themselves- something which the narrator does not have.

I have just begun to read Notes from the Underground. It has been on my list, but as always I have more books than time to read them, so I'm reading a month after the Group read.

I am still at the beginning but there are already things to think about.

I immediately thought of Kafka. As Melanti said in an earlier post:

"And nothing will ever convince me that Kafka hadn't read Notes from Underground before writing The Metamorphosis."

In chapter II it says:

"I had again done something loathsome, that what was done could never be undone, and secretly gnaw, gnaw at myself for it, nagging and consuming myself till at least the bitterness turned into a sort of sweetness, and finally into real positive enjoyment!"


This feeling the narrator expresses made me think of philosophical discussions on sin and why we do what we know we ought not do. Although sins are "loathsome" as the narrator states they are also attractive and enjoyable. If there was not an attractive quality to the sin then it would not prove to be a temptation. A thing that looks good to the eye tempts.

In spite of myself I am really enjoying this book. There is so much I recognize in this character.

When I was teaching we would go to seminars to learn how to work with troubled students or students with special needs. There was research and methods,,, talk, talk , talk. But here Dostoevsky so simply and distinctly states a major problem. In education we called it "negative self-talk" .

Dostoevsky:
"...I very often looked at myself with furious discontent, which verged on loathing, and so I inwardly attributed the same view to everyone."

Wow, I know and have taught people exactly like this narrator. Some students continually tell themselves that they are stupid, mean, fat, etc. Then they will get upset and claim others in the class are saying those words, but no other student ever did. It's so true. This narrator also feels the need to be smarter than the others, which again rings true. I remember working so hard to change students' defeatist thinking and help them get along with others.

*** The big secret to school is that everyone mostly thinks about himself or herself. They really aren't looking at you very much. ***

I wanted to add a point that hasn't really been mentioned yet.

Andrea mentioned a similarity between Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and the UGM. However, she only says that they "have unbalanced or disturbed minds by 21 C standards." I believe Raskolnikov and the UGM are very similar in a fundamental way, which is not just limited to the two characters being disturbed individuals.

One of the central ideas in the book that is haunting the UGM, is his mental dualism between mice and bulls.

In the first part of the book, the Underground Man is busy rambling. He envies stupid people for the simple fact that they just do stuff. He compares stupid people to raging bulls that stop at nothing but a wall. He himself, a rather 'smart' person, or perhaps 'pensive' is a more appropriate term, falls into inertia. He is a man who thinks too much, a mouse that dwells in his little hole. While stupid people just do stuff, only stopping when they reach a wall, the mere existence, or possibility, of such a wall is enough to stop the Underground Man from acting at all. Dwelling in his hole, he begins resenting the wall and with it the whole world. He becomes a cynical man. The world is too much for him. He's hopelessly clueless, unworldy even. Nobody's ever taught him anything and nobody's ever been nice to him. He is ashamed of his existence. Deep down, he wants to be someone, someone strong, someone that does things, a bull.

This idea of the UGM, of mice and bulls, reminds me very much of Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov suffers from a very similar idea, namely that the world is divided into ordinary people and extraordinary people. Raskolnikov has this urge to become an extraordinary person. Therefore, he decides to murder the pawnbroker. But when he does so, he realises it is not in his nature to be an extraordinary person. People like Napoleon just do things. They don't think twice about their actions. Raskolnikov, however, has to put tremendous effort into commiting the murder, after which he is tormented by feelings of guilt. Raskolnikov is, just like the Underground Man, a pensive person, a person with a strong consciousness. He can't live up to the standards he put up for himself. He is a mouse who wants to be a bull, but who realises he can never become a bull when he finally acts by killing the pawnbroker.

It seems to me a major theme in Dostoevsky's work that intelligent people are doomed because of the fact that they are too aware, which leads them to inertia or madness. I believe that, next to the idea that Cleo was referring to (namely that people are spiteful and if we ever reach utopia, people will destroy it, just for the sake of it), this idea is another central point in Dostoevsky's philosophy.

K wrote: "I wanted to add a point that hasn't really been mentioned yet.

Andrea mentioned a similarity between Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and the UGM. However, she only says that they ..."

This was very well thought out and beautifully stated.

Have to admit that I didn't get much from this one. Maybe I was missing something, but I was very tempted to stop reading as it was way too "dude-bro" for me to enjoy it.

Melanti wrote: "I read this for another group last year. It was a lot of work, but really interesting - and extremely influential.

One particular section of it was immediately familiar as the inspiration of Yevge..."

It appears he almost certainly had.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/did-...

Kathryn wrote: "Have to admit that I didn't get much from this one. Maybe I was missing something, but I was very tempted to stop reading as it was way too "dude-bro" for me to enjoy it."

I have learned something from this. Occasionally when interacting with my family in the last couple of weeks I have thought very carefully so that I sound as unlike this narrator as possible. He is a perfect bad example of behavior.

K wrote: "I wanted to add a point that hasn't really been mentioned yet.

Andrea mentioned a similarity between Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and the UGM. However, she only says that they ..."

This is a great post K, and I think everything you say is spot on!

The dangers of Ubermensch thinking is definitely one of Dostoevsky's concerns that recurs strongly in several of his works. I think in Notes from Underground in particular, it's the most central idea. It's also the main reason why I find the narrator so completely intolerable, because I do not think this way of seeing the world is accurate. The world does not come down only to questions of power. We are guaranteed to miss most of the best things in this life if we see it in such a reductive way, and that's one big reason that Raskolnikov and the narrator of Notes from Underground are so spectacularly unhappy. In my opinion, to believe in the Ubermensch is a completely toxic world view, both for the person holding that world view and for everyone around them.

I also completely agree with you when you say that Raskolnikov is more of a mouse that a bull. If he has to be one or the other, he is going to be a mouse wanting to be a bull. But at the end of Crime and Punishment, he is perhaps on a path to another way altogether, where he is neither a mouse or a bull but something better than both?

For sure, Intelligence can make life more difficult, and intelligent people can be unhappy because of the way their minds work. But here, I think the main problem is that these characters have latched onto a bad idea, one that blocks them off from any true or healthy relationships. If they had not been intelligent or educated, they might not have encountered these toxic ideas. So, in a way, their intelligence has hurt them. The exposure to the world of ideas can produce dangers. But then again, there are plenty of complex ideas that are healthy and life-giving too. They just have not found them. Instead, these characters have gotten stuck in a terrible pseudo-intellectual place, a sort-of muddled morass.

It's curious that Crime and Punishment and Notes from Underground both predate Friedrich Nietzsche and Thus Spake Zarathustra A book for all and none. I wonder where these ideas of the "Superman" or bull or Ubermensch first came from? Does anyone know where Dostoevsky would have first encountered them?