• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Fyodor Dostoevsky: Notes From The Underground

SFG75

Well-Known Member
Thought that this great work needed a thread all of it's own. A classic that arguably got the whole existential ball rolling in the first place. This wonderful work attacked enlightenment principles and utopian socialism in one fell swoop.

Study guide for Notes

Online version of Notes

Middlebury guide to it's background and criticism


From the last link:

Notes from Underground was first published in January and February of 1864 as the featured presentation in the first two issues of The Epoch, Dostoevsky's second journal of the 1860's. His first journal, Time, had recently failed, his new journal was threatened with failure, his wife was dying, his financial position was becoming evermore difficult and embarrassing, his conservatism was eroding his popularity with the liberal majority of the reading public, and he was increasingly the subject of attack by the liberal and radical press. On March 20, 1864, Dostoevsky wrote to his brother Mikhail: "I sat down to work on my novel. I want to get it off my back as soon as possible, but I still want to do it as well as possible. It has been harder to write than I thought it would be. Still it is absolutely necessary that it be good: I personally want it to be good. The tone now seems too strange, sharp and wild; perhaps it will not right itself; if not, the poetry will have to soften it and carry it off."

Many aspects of Notes from Underground, - and especially, as Dostoevsky himself noticed, the tone - seem strange, sharp and even bitter. To some extent, the bitterness of the novel is traceable to the many personal misfortunes Dostoevsky suffered while the novel was being written. Much more important, however, was the influence of his maturing world-view with its ever colder and more distant attitude toward the European liberalism, materialism and utopianism of his younger years. Dostoevsky had begun his writing career in the 1840's as a romantic idealist, even as a dreamer. At that time he had devoted a great deal of attention to utopian socialism and its vision of a perfectly satisfying, perfectly regulated life for humankind. This perfection of life was thought to be achievable solely through the application of the principles of reason and enlightened self-interest. In fact, it was maintained that given the dominance of the rational and the spread of enlightenment, perfection of life must necessarily follow.

:cool:
 
Hey, this is useful.

I started the book last night, and although I consider myself an intelligent person, it took me two hours to get through 10 pages.

A lot of it was flying over my head unless I stopped to think about the ideas and to put them together.

The central theme is a bit hard to decipher. I hope it clears up today during reading time.
 
There is an awesome Dostoyevsky forum where his works are discussed with passionate interest. Since joining, I found more than a few threads that helped explain a few things to me. While I am very familiar with Russian history and the background of the author, things such as meanings behind common objects and actions in the text(literary allusion?) were discussed to such a degree, that I got more out of different works. For example, in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov uses an ax to kill the landlady. In peasant Russia, the ax would've been a rare commodity. Not only that, but it was a symbol of the middle class, something that Raskolnikov would've been lucky to see had he truly existed. In looking at the site, it came out that the ax stood for a "double-bladed" danger. That, and other items of all his works, are included. Do check it out, it'd be well worth your time.

In regards to Notes, the first half of it is more interesting IMHO. Overall, I'd say it's an existential manifesto, though it isn't exactly spelled out how one is to obtain existential nirvana. It is also a statement against the "isms" of the day. He delivers a devastiting critique of socialism and those who are for such a thing. As a precurosor to Animal Farm, he predicted the hypocrisy and immorality of it's leaders in his book The Possessed. In Notes, he points out that even if man is given utopia, people would not want it and that therefore, it is unreasonable to strive towards some utopian goal. Kind similar to the whole drowning a mule for refusing to take a drink analogy. The enumeration of the problem with no name, essentially, un-named dread and deadened senses is something that truly stuck out for me. A wonderful book, definitely his best IMHO.
 
After reading through the stuff on that forum, and then tackling the book again, it made a lot more sense. Thankfully things cleared up a bit more after the first three chapters. With no context, I found the first three chapters really hard to understand. Now I'm into the second part. As you said, it's not as good as the first part, but easier to get through. I find the book makes me really uncomfortable, and leaves me with an unsettled feeling, which is part of its genius I suppose.
 
Oh if I were doing nothing out of laziness. Lord, how I'd respect myself then. Respect myself precisely because I'd at least be capable of having laziness in me; there would be in me at least one, as it were, positive quality, which I myself could be sure of. Question: who is he? Answer: a lazybones. Now it would be most agreeable to hear that about myself. It means I'm positively defined; it means there's something to say about me. "Lazybones!" --now, that is a title and a mission, it's a career sirs. No joking, it really is.

****ing genius!
 
Fyodor Dostoevsky - Notes from Underground

Forgive me if I spelled the authors name wrong, but has anyone else started this book and been a bit put off by the content and writing style?

I found myself chuckling at a few parts and grinning fairly often but I was too perturbed by the style of writing and lack of a real story to actually finish the book. I moved on to Crime and Punishment and found a very similar style of writing in a much more enjoyable format with a very good story.

But does anyone else have experience with this book? Is it really worth the read or can I safely dismiss it while moving on to some of Dostoevsky's other novels?
 
Notes is an unusual writing in terms of its structure. The first part started off with a bull rush of angst and intense feelings. There are some outstanding lines in the first half that are underlined and highlighted in my book, perspetives that are just amazing and thought provoking like no other. After that point, the story just seemed to fade into oblivion. In my opinion, it reads like some personal manifesto that was morphed into a fictional story for the sake of it.
 
I read the first part and wasn't sure whether the second part connected or not, or was just bound in with it in my copy. Duh. In a loose sense of the word I 'enjoyed' the first part. I read it not so much to hear what the protagonist had to say, but to see how well and vividly -- and consistently -- Dostoevsky could portray such a malcontent personality. So I read it for the writing, not for the content. And I would say Dostoevsky succeeded.
In a way, it reminded me very much of Salinger's portrayal of Holden Caulfield. Many people don't care for Holden's personality in Catcher in the Rye -- or for the book either -- but I think Salinger did a magnificent job of portraying the 'Caulfield personality' consistently, vividly and believably from one end of the book to the other. And I count that a writing accomplishment also.
 
Most people like The Catcher in the Rye from what I have seen.
Most people also identify with Caulfield for the most part, at least I know that I do.
 
Most people like The Catcher in the Rye from what I have seen.
Most people also identify with Caulfield for the most part, at least I know that I do.

No particular disagreement with what you say. I only said "many" not "most," so you may be right. I do expect though, that over the course of time you'll run into a fair number of discussions with people of different views, as I have. I happen to think the book is a masterpiece, and I know many people who would not go that far in praising it, but instead have disagreed with me. So, variety is definitely the spice of life. :flowers:
 
Notes is one of the most brilliant pieces of literature ever written,IMO. I first read it when I was probably 16 & have re-read it many, many times since then. Theres nothing really like it, although for some reason the Death of Ivan Ilyich comes to mind as something of a similar creature. I adore Dostoevsky. His characters are so passionate & idiosyncratic, oftentimes borderline pathological. Ive just recently gotten into Dickens, & I think he must be the English version of Dostoevsky. I love the emotional intensity of both writers, as well as the often dismal subject matter.

Funnily enough, my avatar is from the cover of one of the translations of Notes. I can honestly say that this is one of the most influential pieces of literature for me. Very delightful to see it being discussed on here!
 
Forgive me if I spelled the authors name wrong, but has anyone else started this book and been a bit put off by the content and writing style?

I found myself chuckling at a few parts and grinning fairly often but I was too perturbed by the style of writing and lack of a real story to actually finish the book. I moved on to Crime and Punishment and found a very similar style of writing in a much more enjoyable format with a very good story.

But does anyone else have experience with this book? Is it really worth the read or can I safely dismiss it while moving on to some of Dostoevsky's other novels?


I would say do NOT dismiss it by any means! I guess Im coming from a completely different place from you though, because the writing & the narrator's deliberate engagement of the reader were the exact things that endeared me to the work. You had a reaction to the narrative, which is a good thing! Whether it was repulsion or irritation or whatever, it still engaged you to the point that you had an emotional response. Maybe come back to Notes after you have had a bit more experience w/Dostoevsky? It truly is an incredibly insightful psychological portrait. Once you get used to the intensity of Dostoevsky's characters, you might get a little more out of Notes. Just a thought.
 
I would say do NOT dismiss it by any means! I guess Im coming from a completely different place from you though, because the writing & the narrator's deliberate engagement of the reader were the exact things that endeared me to the work. You had a reaction to the narrative, which is a good thing! Whether it was repulsion or irritation or whatever, it still engaged you to the point that you had an emotional response. Maybe come back to Notes after you have had a bit more experience w/Dostoevsky? It truly is an incredibly insightful psychological portrait. Once you get used to the intensity of Dostoevsky's characters, you might get a little more out of Notes. Just a thought.

That is exactly what I have been thinking and when I finish Crime and Punishment in a few days it will be the next thing that I read. That is if I can find it in my towns small library or bookstores, sometimes I wish I lived in a larger city.
 
No particular disagreement with what you say. I only said "many" not "most," so you may be right. I do expect though, that over the course of time you'll run into a fair number of discussions with people of different views, as I have. I happen to think the book is a masterpiece, and I know many people who would not go that far in praising it, but instead have disagreed with me. So, variety is definitely the spice of life. :flowers:

I have never been a part of a book club or anything like that, and as I am only just turned 17 years old I have not had a chance to discuss much literature with many people. You are probably right.
 
I found this novella a pretty uneven work. The first part, the long, , aimless, spiteful monologue, is delicious. Then Dostoevsky tries to create a plot in the second part and it all goes to hell.

Dostoevsky's short fiction usually disappoints me: A Weak Heart, The Double, The Little Hero, I can't stand most of it.
 
Back
Top