Short & Sweet Treats discussion
Some Leftovers! (Previous Reads)
>
Notes from Underground
I just want to let anyone that may be interested in this read that the linked book is actually a story collection (which is awesome, by the way), so if you plan on buying the book, you may want to just purchase the story Notes from Underground, or a collection. That's up to you! I recommend a collection ;-) And most Dostoyevsky collections DO include this one, so chances are, your local library should have a copy. I also think it would be a good idea to mention the name of your translator in your first post in the thread...its very interesting to see divergent viewpoints of the translator's personalities shine through the different translations!
Mod
thank you, Teresa! you know, I never really thought about the importance of a good translator until I just got back into reading the classics again. And I can see how it is an essential!
I did just find this in the Kindle store, there is a free version. wonder if it is decent??
Hi. This has been sitting on my bookshelf for too long. I've been meaning to read it, and this is a good opportunity. Just joined; looking forward to reading with you :)
Welcome, Michael! And Beth, I'm sure your version will be just fine. You will get the gist of the story, and I'm sure since it is free, it is one of the original translations, which usually tend to be the best. So I think you got yourself a good copy! ;-) Does it happen to mention who translated it? The only reason I mentioned translators is because there has been a movement recently to 're-translate' classic Russian works, adding a more 'modern' and 'poetic' feel (spearheaded by Larissa Varonsky, I believe her name is), whereas the earlier translators tried to stay as close as possible to the original text. Let's just put it this way: you are in for a treat no matter what! ;-)~Teresa~
Okay, ladies! Its tiiimmmeee! Yay! I'll be acting as the 'discussion leader' for this read, and I'm super excited since this is one of my top 10 all-time favorites. I'm going to post a reading schedule, and at the end of each section, we'll have a day to discuss what we've read up to that point. This is a very 'loose' schedule, meaning if you want to read the entire book in one day, that's fine. If you want to read 5 pages a day, and stretch it out all month, that's A-OK, too. All I ask is that you are kind enough to mark spoilers with the, well, with the spoiler alert! ;-) Here's the breakdown:
December 1st-4th: Any Introduction your copy may have and Part 1 in entirety
December 5th: our day to discuss Part 1
December 6th-10th: Part 2, sections I-V
December 11th: our day to discuss the first and second sections
December 12th-16th: Part 2, sections VI-X (the end), as well as any annotations and footnotes your edition may have.
December 17th: the day we will discuss the book as a whole.
Once again, this is very loose. I know its holiday season, and everyone has things to do. This is just for people like me, who need a little structure and a 'deadline' to keep their butts in gear! This is a very short read, but very dense, as well, and that is why I gave 4 days for each section of approximately 50 pages. I also think it may be a good idea to mention which translator has worked on the edition you're reading. My hard copy is translated by Mirra Ginsburg with an intro by Donald Fanger. My Kindle edition doesn't say who translated it, although I may find it upon closer inspection. But it's yellow with 'Notes From Underground' written in red. Anyways, just be aware that because of the fact that this IS translated, some of our quotes will be slightly different.
Okay, if anyone sees any problems with the schedule, let me know. Feel free to PM me. Also, keep in mind, I don't have a doctorate in Russian Lit, so I do NOT have all the answers to questions that may arise. I want this to be fun and educational, without being stiffling and overwhelming to our group. So as I mentioned, PLEASE don't feel as though you *must* abide by the schedule!!! I cannot stress this enough! Read ahead, read slower; read HOWEVER you'd like! This is mainly to keep my fellow procrastinators in line! :-P
I suspect we will have a lot of fun with this, even if it IS a morose book. Please, if you have any questions, comments, etc., don't hesitate to ask or PM me your ideas. If the schedule seems too slow, we can crank it up a notch or two. We'll see during the first section whether or not this 'syllabus' is a good idea or not. Feedback on the idea of having an actual reading schedule for the first time would be well appreciated! Thanks so much, guys & gals! I look forward to this! And don't forget, you speed readers out there; the schedule is NOT meant to exclude you AT ALL. This is only an attempt to 'jump start' the readers like me that push the read off until the last week, then never get around to it! Sorry about the rambling; its one of my worst habits! Thanks for reading through! Post thoughts and comments as you see fit, just try and use a spoiler tag (and if you are like me and always on the phone rather than the computer, just mark 'SPOILER ALERT' at the beginning of your post!). Thanks so much!
Now, one last thing....who all plans on participating in this one? It'd be nice to get a gauge on how many we'll have discussing. Thanks again!!!
Happy reading, all!
~Teresa~
Mod
This schedule and your ideas are great, Teresa. I like how you broke it down to make it more "doable."
Count me in!
Daniel wrote: "Hi Teresa!Anyone know what translation it is? I've read a couple of times around the web that these two translators, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, are the best......"
I have NO CLUE who did the free version, but these are the translators whose names I was trying to think of in comment #8. They are re-translating some of the classics. And, checking out their Wiki page, it DOES appear that they have, indeed, translated Notes From Underground. I found their translation on Amazon...here's a link:
http://www.amazon.com/Underground-Vin...
Also, here is a link to Wiki's 'Notes From Underground' page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_fr...
Aaaannndddd one last link. I KNOW Sparknotes gets a bad rap because a lot of college students read the general synopsis instead of the actual work, but it can be helpful to look at IN CONJUNCTION with your reading. So here's that one:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/undergr...
And, Daniel, I started my love affair with Dostoevsky with Notes From Underground as well. It quickly progressed to Crime & Punishment (God, I LOVED that book!!!!), and The Brothers Karamovoz, as well as most of his short stories. There is something about the somber nature of his writing that I just love. It certainly won't be for everyone, but the man had a very rough life and it shows through in his works. I guess I lied...one more link won't hurt, will it? Here's one to his wiki bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_D...
The poor man had to stare at an open grave in a death shroud, waiting to be executed before Nicholas I 'pardoned' him. That was a classic Nicholas I move...let a prisoner dig their own grave and let them believe they would be executed til the very last second as a way of psychological control. A GREAT example of this Russian cruelty is One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, although by that time, Russia was under Soviet control. Anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy, Daniel! Glad to have ya, and feel free to read at your own pace (Infinite Jest is GIGANTIC!!! I have it on my Kindle, but Russian lit is usually the only incredibly lengthy tomes I read...you'll have to let me know whether you enjoyed it!)
Happy reading, all!
~Teresa~
Not sure which version of this book I'm going to read. I have the freebie Kindle edition, of course, (red and cream colored cover) but I also picked up the Norton critical edition last time I was at the library. (Translated by Michael Katz). I guess it just depends on the weather and if I feel like reading footnotes/essays, etc when I get around to reading it.
Thanks for organising this, Teresa. Add one more to the list of participants. I'm reading the 1913 translation (Letters from the Underworld). The translator's name doesn't appear in the book itself, but a small amount of Google searching suggests that it might be 'C. J. Hogarth'. I'm looking forward to this.
Mod
Anyone know what translation it is? I've read a couple of times around the web that these two translators, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, are the best......"
I h..."
oh Teresa! this is all such good information!
I have no problem with sparknotes either if they are being used as a supplement to rather than a substitute for the book!
I'm reading this. I think translation can make a pretty big difference. That said, I personally don't know what is considered the definitive version, I picked up a very cheap e version of all the works. Constance Garner (?) translated. Now to find my old paperback...
Not farther than on the second page of this book the major character says, “I never even managed to become anything: neither wicked nor good, neither a scoundrel nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect.”In another book, written later by another author, the very first sentence goes, “…he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.”
Coincidence? Why don’t we find out? The book is listed as ‘to read’ with this group. And it’s very short. Maybe we could read it next or next after next?
Mod
Hi, Bigollo! You are referring to The Metamorphosis I believe. It's a classic and you're in luck since we do read a classic each month! When nominations come up for the February pick, then you certainly may nominate it.
Interesting that you tied that together. Nice! :)
Hello, ladies & gents! I apologize for posting so late in the day; I ended up working until 3 A.M last nite, and slept in BIG-TIME today! Sorry! :-(Anyway, down to brass tacks. How many of y'all are still on schedule? I'd like to have a little discussion on the first part, but do not want to spoil anything for those that are going it at a slower clip. Here's a few broad 'questions' to get your brain gears moving ;-)
#1. This is a classic example of the infamous 'unreliable narrator.' Do you despise him, as he accuses us of during several points? He mentions we think he is 'despicable,' 'irritating,' and claims that we are 'laughing' at him. Is that actually the case with your reading experience?
#2. What do you make of his repeated comparisons between himself and 'men of action'? What do you think a 'man of action' actually is?
#3. The first part is by far the 'toughest' to get through; its more or less a psychological study of a 'sick' and 'spiteful' man. Are his incessant ramblings bothering you? Do you believe the things he says? (If this part is driving you nuts, hang in there...the second part is actually a narrative.)
#4. Finally, what do you think of the book thus far? Like it? Love it? Loathe it? Any themes, thoughts, or comparisons you'd like to make? What's your favorite quote so far?
Obviously, this isn't an essay test; there's no need to answer these questions in order and separately. You can drop one line saying how you feel, or jumble up all your thoughts together in one long paragraph. I'm just curious what everyone is thinking so far. I'm excited about this discussion, as I've always loved this book.
On a side note, I found an audio version my library had, and I listened to the first part again after I woke up whilst doing my morning chores. Its strange to me; almost like another book altogether! Although I've read it several times, I've always read my little Bantam Classics copy. The audio version is by a different translator, and WOW! what a difference! I like the eloquence of the audio-version, but the simplicity of the print version draws me as well. I listened to one 'chapter' side by side with the book, and some of the differences were subtle, while others were waaayyy different. Very interesting to see!
Let's get some discussion rolling! When you're done with part one, jump on and share your thoughts! I know the beginning is quite depressing and somber, but it peps up a bit during part 2, and is also 'easier' to digest the narrative part of the book, rather than the almost existential stream of consciousness first part. Ya just gotta make it through part one! ;-)
~Teresa~
Bigollo wrote: "Not farther than on the second page of this book the major character says, “I never even managed to become anything: neither wicked nor good, neither a scoundrel nor an honest man, neither a hero n..."As Laura already pointed out, you make an EXCELLENT comparison!!! 10 points for you! LOL :-P
~Teresa~
Mod
Anyway, down to brass tacks. How many of y'all ..."
I DO find him to be a very unreliable narrator! and I find him amusing as well! Like how he doesn't go to the doctor just to spite THEM! Wow! I think yes, I kind of do find him amusing. So maybe he's right ?!
I have finished the first part. And I like the book so far. I’m reading it in Russian (I am Russian), and I have Pevear/Volokhonsky translation handy to gloat over hard-to-translate passages.Dostoyevsky is not my favorite author, but every time I happen to read something of his opera, I don’t regret and like it enough to get back to him again later.
Last time I read Dostoyevsky, it was the Demons, and I was quite annoyed with that first person character in it. It felt like he didn’t belong there, and was created just to darn up not a perfect fabric of the story.
This time, first person is perfect. Very natural, actually the only choice for this kind of tale.
Whew! I was worried people wouldn't appreciate our little curmudgeonly narrator! I'm so glad everyone seems to be enjoying so far! That makes me happy! :-)I agree that our mysterious unnamed narrator is funny with his 'I'm not going to the doctor out of spite & if my liver hurts, GOOD! Let it hurt more!' LOL...funny guy, for sure!
And I've not read Demons, although I'm sure I'll get to it sooner or later. My favorite book in his ouvre is Crime & Punishment, by far. Something about the psychological study of a man driven mad by his own guilt just completely captivated me from page one. I read it in less than 36 hours, even though it IS lengthy. I just couldn't put it down! It has some battle wounds from that marathon reading, but that's part of the pleasure of hard copies of books! I bumped into so many walls while reading C&P for the first time; I tried reading while walking the dog, while cooking, basically whilst doing EVERYTHING! Still to this day, I think of Raskolnikov often. That book REALLY had an impact on me!
Oh, and the reason I can't respond to each of your comments is because I'm on the phone app, and its dismally set up for full participation. Oh well...I'm stuck at work, so I'm doing the best I can 'til I get home to the laptop. Until then, happy reading, all!!!
~Teresa~
Mod
I have NO CLUE why they've made the mobile version so user UN- friendly. You'd think they could fix that SOMEHOW, ya know??? Oh well...it is what it is....~Teresa~
Teresa wrote: "Whew! I was worried people wouldn't appreciate our little curmudgeonly narrator! I'm so glad everyone seems to be enjoying so far! That makes me happy! :-)I agree that our mysterious unnamed narr..."
Teresa,
Thank you for your detailed response.
I think you don’t have to apologize for not replying to, as you say, each of our comments. We all have busy lives and we all do our best:). (Our hero from the ‘Notes’ would probably disagree with the latter though:)
As for work, I, too, am at work. And that’s the only place I get to internet. I do it between things and at coffee breakes, or after work if I still have energy. My home is only bed, kitchen and lots of books and boxes all over.. Hmm.. nice alliteration.. it must mean something:)
I haven't quite finished part 1 yet. So far I am liking what I'm reading. Regarding your questions, Teresa, I think that by 'men of action' he means people who act impulsively. He contrasts it with the sensual man, himself, whom he despises, saying he destroys any motivation to act by introducing uncertainty. So far I am interested to see him elaborate a little more on his condition. I feel I can see where he's going, especially with his argument that not everyone acts in their own interest and to make that assumption is to commit the same mistake as believing people get less blood-thirsty with more civilisation.
I like it a lot so far. If someone handed this book to me without telling me who wrote it, I would probably guess it was Nietzsche, as Nietzsche has similar ideas, writes similarly and structures his books - in short sections - similarly.
Bigollo wrote: "I think you don’t have to apologize for not replying to, as you say, each of our comments. We all have busy lives and we all do our best:). (Our hero from the ‘Notes’ would probably disagree with the latter though:)..."Yes! LOL...I know we are all busy, and I also know that there is NO WAY I will be able to respond to each comment. However, I do prefer to 'reply' to certain comments like I'm doing now so that there isn't confusion as to who I'm talking or responding to. And unfortunately, responding like I am in this post (i.e., with the italicized quote I'm responding to at the beginning) is not something I can do on the app :-( But I'm sure you are clever enough to know that I was, indeed, responding to your post in comment #26 ;-)
Michaelx wrote: "Regarding your questions, Teresa, I think that by 'men of action' he means people who act impulsively. He contrasts it with the sensual man, himself, whom he despises, saying he destroys any motivation to act by introducing uncertainty. ..."
I am getting the same idea as you on the 'men of action' thing. And while our Underground Man tries to make these men sound almost like a less evolved species, I, personally, think he is jealous of their emotions and passions. He can't seem to 'feel' much of anything, and it seems clear he hates himself because of it. A balance between being ruled by emotion vs intellect must be reached, and our man doesn't seem to be able to ride that fine line.
As for your statement about Nietzsche, you make an excellent point! I've only read some of Nietzsche's shorter pieces, but the style IS similar...What I think makes this book so special is how early it was published. These ideas are incredibly revolutionary for the time period! Camus wrote nearly 100 years after Dostoevsky wrote this book, and his stuff wasn't well received at the beginning, so I can only imagine how this 'pre-existentialist' book ruffled feathers! THAT'S some food for thought!
***I'm sorry if any of this is confusing or senseless; I'm literally falling asleep as I'm writing! Off to bed with my exhausted ass! And if something IS beguiling you, don't hesitate to ask for clarification here or through PM. I won't bite! I promise! We can learn from each other!!! That's the beauty of group reads!***
Happy reading, all!!!
~Teresa~
Michaelx wrote: "If someone handed this book to me without telling me who wrote it, I would probably guess it was Nietzsche, as Nietzsche has similar ideas, writes similarly and structures his books - in short sections - similarly. ..."I heard that Nietzsche once, probably later in his life, stumbled upon this book, read it and was mesmerized by it.
As for short sections, maybe it was a fashion at that time in Russia; such a monster as War and Peace is written in short chapters too. You can read it in small portions for a looong time, eventually befriending or befoeing the characters as your own relatives, but keeping in touch with them every day even if for brief moments. Very friendly style.
I don't know if I agree just yet with what you say about him being jealous of men of action. I still haven't finished part 1 yet, so I'd like to see if that changes as more information comes through.When he spoke about the act of revenge I was starting to think that maybe he was hinting at the working class. They don't hit back despite being abused. I might be reading too much into that though.
You're absolutely right. I'm blown away by the prescience of the ideas.
Bigollo, is that so? I read a quote from Nietzsche on Dostoevsky's Wikipedia. Apparently Nietzsche said of Dostoevsky that he was 'the only psychologist ... from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life'.
I agree - a very friendly style. I hope it comes back into fashion.
Back to the book, I think it's interesting how the author says that devious people act deviously or degradingly in an effort to prove to themselves that they do have a free will. But the fact that the author predicts it implies that even those acts are determined and therefore bolster the argument against free will - i.e. it's just another act that we can add when compiling the 'tables', the mathematical formula of human action. The author hasn't addressed this yet.
Bigollo wrote: "As for short sections, maybe it was a fashion at that time in Russia; such a monster as War and Peace is written in short chapters too. You can read it in small portions for a looong time, eventually befriending or befoeing the characters as your own relatives, but keeping in touch with them every day even if for brief moments. Very friendly style. ..."Yes, I LOVE books that have, as I call them, 'easily digestible bits.' Its nice to be able to read a section while drinking your morning coffee, then another while waiting for your bus, etc. It makes an intimidatingly large book go much quicker! I LOVE how you describe reading War & Peace. I haven't read it yet, but I got the same vibe with Anna Karenina.
Michaelx wrote: "I don't know if I agree just yet with what you say about him being jealous of men of action. I still haven't finished part 1 yet, so I'd like to see if that changes as more information comes throug..."
I'll admit, I'm not quite sure WHAT his deal with 'men of action' is! LOL..like I mentioned, I found an audio version to listen to from the library, and a lot of the deep thoughts are pretty damn different from my paperback copy. I wonder how much trouble we will have due to different translations? This oughta be interesting! ;-)
Michaelx wrote: "But the fact that the author predicts it implies that even those acts are determined and therefore bolster the argument against free will - i.e. it's just another act that we can add when compiling the 'tables', the mathematical formula of human action. The author hasn't addressed this yet.
..."
I think this is why he won't go see the doctor and gripes about 2 times 2 being 4. He knows that 'free will' doesn't seem to exist in his world, and is constantly trying to do the opposite of what someone else would do! He's an odd man, our 'underground man,' THAT'S for sure!
What the man of action is.The whole chapter 3. can serve as a rough definition of what our hero calls ‘the man of action’. Sort of. At least he provides a number of synonyms and the antithesis of ‘moa’.
The funny thing, for me personally, is that I think I know very well what he means by that. Better to say, I just feel what he means with my bones. (For me, to feel is stronger than to know.) And hence, as always the case with feelings, it is very hard to explain in words.
But let’s push Bigollo aside for a moment. What other words does our hero use instead of ‘the man of action’?
By the way, in the translation (made by Pevear and Volokhonsky) of my copy of the book, ‘man of actions’ is called ‘active figure’.
Anyway, let me quote the very beginning of ch.3. If you have a different translation, combined with this, it can give more light. I’ll put in capital the expressions that are characteristic of ‘man of action’ in our hero’s view.
“What happens… with PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO TAKE REVENGE AND GENERALLY HOW TO STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES? Once they are overcome, say, by vengeful feeling, then for the time there is simply nothing left in their whole being but this feeling. Such a gentleman just lunges straight for his goal like an enraged bull, horns lowered, and maybe only a wall can stop him. (Incidentally: before a wall, these gentlemen – that is, INGENUOUS PEOPLE AND ACTIVE FIGURES – quite sincerely fold. For them a wall is not a deflection… … For them a wall possesses something soothing, morally resolving and final, perhaps even something mystical…)
Well, sirs, it is just such AN INGENUOUS MAN that I regard as the REAL, NORMAL MAN, the way his tender mother – nature – herself wished to see him when she so kindly conceived him on earth. I envy such a man to the point of extreme bile. [***btw, to envy does not mean to be jealous of their passions here, I don’t think our hero would change places with ‘normal people’, I think he is being very sarcastic here***] He is STUPID, …, but perhaps a normal man ought to be stupid...”
And here is the definition of the antithesis of the man of action:
“…If one takes the ANTITHESIS of the NORMAL MAN, that is, the MAN OF HIGHTENED CONSCIOUSNESS…”
Another synonym of the man of actions: L’HOMME DE LA NATRE ET DE LA VERITE. (=THE MAN OF NATURE AND TRUTH). A parody on JJ Rousseau.
Our man gives us a sort of a thought test in which ‘man of action’ and ‘man of consciousness’ (he calls him simply ‘mouse’) behave very differently. If he is offended, the man of action “…with his innate stupidity, regards his revenge quite simply as JUSTICE; whereas the mouse, as a result of its heightened consciousness, denies it any justice…”
In other words, the antithesis of the man of action – the man of consciousness - REFLECTS before doing anything. (And which of the two has more passion or any other emotions is beside the point, they’re just wired to react differently). Dostoyevsky uses the word ‘think’. But it’s a different type of thinking, different from thinking as computing. When we are to get things done we, yes, think, but actually we compute. Some of us are very efficient in that. We call them smart. But, it seems to me, Dostoyevsky uses the word ‘think’ in the sense of ‘reflection’. That’s what it means to be highly conscious – to be overly reflective. But we can’t just stop reflecting when we are tired of it, there is no natural finality in reflection. To be consistent, we have to keep reflecting, which… denies any action.
I think your analysis is spot on, Bigollo. I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts.
Michaelx wrote: "I think your analysis is spot on, Bigollo. I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts."Thank you Michael,
I enjoy the discussion here. The book turned out non-trivial and more interesting than I’d expected. I wish there were more readers involved in the discussion, because, I think, it’s almost impossible for one person to notice everything there is in this book. I think, to dig the many ideas of the book is possible only with the aid of personal experience and observation; and one person can have of both only this much..
Bigollo wrote: " I wish there were more readers involved in the discussion, because, I think, it’s almost impossible for one person to notice everything there is in this book. I think, to dig the many ideas of the book is possible only with the aid of personal experience and observation; and one person can have of both only this much....."You are absolutely correct, here. I wish there were more people participating as well. Perhaps later in the month? We'll see. Thanks, Michaelx, for your thoughts, too!
Anyway, seeing as how we are approaching the 'discussion date' for the first half of part 2, I thought I'd re-listen to part 1 today. Part 2 is a narrative, and I find myself breezing through it. Part 1 is more psychological and metaphysical. I'm curious as to what you guys thought of section 11. Do you think he's actually lied to us the whole time? What do you think the 'underground' is? I missed reading this one last winter, and it would appear I've changed quite a bit since my last reading. I feel 'happy' for once, and it completely causes my reading of this work to be drastically different from the last time I'd read it. I used to find myself as the underground man; now I don't relate with him as much, although he does speak the truth. My favorite quote so far sums it up the best:
"In every man's memory there are things he won't reveal to others, except, perhaps, to friends. And there are things he won't reveal even to friends, only, perhaps, to himself, and then, too, in secret. And finally, there are things he is afraid to reveal even to himself... (page 44; italics mine)
I love our narrator. He is bitter, and seems so spiteful and angry. But I think he wants to feel. He wants to react with passion, rather than reason. Or so he is in my own personal reading experiences.
We will 'get to know' our narrator more in part 2, which, while wonderfully somber and characteristically 'Russian', is not nearly as psychologically 'deep' as part 1. It's depth is contained in a story; an experience of our underground man. In this narrative, you see him in situations as he describes them. Part 2 is the best time to keep in mind how unreliable of a narrator we have.
I hope we can gather up a few more participants! Until next time, happy reading, all!
~Teresa~
Teresa wrote: "I feel 'happy' for once,"I hope you stay that way. Even after it passes:)
That is a wonderful quote, Teresa. What, do you suppose, are the 'things he is afraid to reveal even to himself'. I think it might be easy to overlook the importance of this statement by saying 'in general there are things we are all afraid to reveal to ourselves; it's nothing specific'. I think the writer is most afraid of being biologically the same as the people around him; he doesn't want to see how normal and typically human he is. I have two reasons to think this. First, coming back to my previous point on free will, to act the opposite way everyone else does is still predictable, yet he doesn't notice that; he hasn't revealed that to himself yet. Second, in section seven he says he feels that his personality, his individuality, is the most important thing:'the chief, the most valuable, of all his possessions - namely, his personality, his individuality'.
That's because these things separate him from his human biology and enable him to see himself as different. And this isn't just an assessment of his own values; he reckons personality and individuality are the most important things for all people.
As Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil:
'Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir'.
Michaelx wrote: "That is a wonderful quote, Teresa. What, do you suppose, are the 'things he is afraid to reveal even to himself'. I think it might be easy to overlook the importance of this statement by saying 'in..."These are some deep, thought provoking observances here, Michaelx. I JUST got home from work, and am going to bed! But I will have some feedback for ya tomorrow! ;-)
Mod
Okay, so...DISCUSSION DAY!!! YAY!!! I would hazard a guess that some of you guys are still digesting Part 1, which is fine, because I have a super long 13 hr shift at work today, so I won't be the most 'available' today. I WILL check the thread several times (depending on how busy we are), and respond as much as I can to any posts you guys make. I'd like to go ahead and ask some super broad questions so as not to spoil anything. Here we go:#1. Are you enjoying the narrative more, or would you rather go back inside the mind of the underground man as in part 1?
#2. Have your views and feelings about our unnamed narrator changed since beginning part 2?
#3. Favorite parts? Quotes? Things you didn't like?
We'll start with those for now and see what you guys are thinking so far!
Until next time, happy reading, all!!!
~Teresa~
Michaelx wrote: "That is a wonderful quote, Teresa. What, do you suppose, are the 'things he is afraid to reveal even to himself'."We are privy to at least one thing that he is afraid to reveal even to himself.
Namely, Part 2 of the novel – Apropos of the Wet Snow.
If we go a little bit further past that quote, which I consider the central of the whole novel, we read,
“…I myself have only recently resolved to recall some of my former adventures, which till now I have always avoided… Now, however, when I not only recall them but am even resolved to write them down, now I want precisely to make a TEST: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE PERFECTLY CANDID WITH ONESELF and not be afraid of the whole truth?”
And right before the line quoted by Teresa, our Hero says to his imaginary opponents (us?),
“…are you indeed so gullible as to imagine I will publish all this and, what’s more, give it to you to read?”
That’s really very interesting… What’s going on here?
Well, he didn’t publish it. Dostoyevsky did.
In the Forward of my copy, the translator Richard Pevear points out that we have here actually two books. One is written by the underground man, the other by Dostoyevsky. And the two coincide almost word for word. I agree. Nice artistic trick. In particular, despite the Man is writing solely for himself, creating his opponents just for structure and convenience, he is also a fiction character! And we get to look into his mind, by way of reading Dostoyevsky’s novel. It sounds trivial, but sometimes we forget that our Hero does not really addresses us. His imaginary opponents are part of his mind.
But can it be he’s lying to himself here too and actually hopes to be heard by the outside world? At least he’s desperately trying to be honest as I read it. If, as he maintains that mind is bigger than just reasoning, TRUE or FALSE values are not always applicable to mind. And lying or not lying may not be necessarily well-posed question. The answer would be – not applicable.
But I understand, Teresa might have chosen this quote, not only because it’s central to the novel, but also because it resonates somehow very personally with her. As with all of us. It inevitably, immediately turns us into a certain mode, we start debating inside, is it true? is it same way with me? Often truth of life is very hard to discern in life until good literature puts it in focus and makes us ask ourselves 'interesting' questions.
Yes, I am still digesting Part I:). I’m still thinking to post two comments on Part I. But maybe not. Free Will. Man oh man! I promised myself many times in the past never to engage in a discussion on Free Will. And here we go. A whole book about it. The first problem to arise in any such discussion is due to the fact that Free Will is only a label, indicating a large nest of problems. And many people interpret the term quite differently. A slightest difference in the definition tends to result in huge differences in conclusions. And men are quick to come to blows. If I lived in say 17th century, in my youth, I would challenge to a duel many a man just on the question of Free Will. Maybe just one man. The first one.Michael already referred to the question of Free Will twice…
But Free Will topic is not for now. For now, how about my favorite quote from Part I?
Well, there are so many.
I’d like to mention that despite the gloomy character of the story, it has a lot of humor in it. Section six makes a good piece for a standing comedy.
So I choose this quote, just to be on a funny side:
“Oh, if I were doing nothing only 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.”
Woohoo!!
Why do I like this quote? Because I AM a lazybones. Laziness is my major characteristic, my first eigenvalue. And after reading this quote I feel I belong to a golden guild. I feel so proud that I can’t button my shirt up front any more.
I am enjoying the narrative more than the first part. I think that is because he is such an unreliable narrator - one second he's joking, then he's leaving you guessing - that I feel like if I was talking to him in a room one on one I'd like to grab him by the scruff of his neck and shout in the most friendly way possible, 'Cut the bullshit!' As for how I feel about him in the second part, I feel sorry for him. I think that might be because I see in him my younger self. The dinner scene...that was cringe worthy. The pages are going by a lot quicker for this second part. I love how Dostoevsky can pull you into the mind of his characters so that you can understand actions that would otherwise seem, at least to me, incomprehensible. (For example, his pacing back and forth; his refusal to leave.)
WOW! I just want to thank you two, Bigollo & Michaelx! You guys are really vital in keeping this discussion rolling! Kudos to the both of you! Unfortunately, I feel like the slacker here! I was literally running my tail off from the minute I clocked in to the minute I clocked out 12.75 hours later...well, not literally, cause I don't actually have a tail, but you get the drift! ;-) Just know that I am reading your posts and am very intrigued with your opinions. I have so much to say, but I have to get ready for work shortly, so I will try and say what I can for now. At least I have tomorrow off! And then my 'mini-vacation' starts on Sunday and goes thru Thursday! I can't wait!!! During those days, I'll be raining posts upon this thread like, well, like I don't know what, but you'll be seeing a lot more from me! At least I'm giving fair warning! ;-)
Bigollo wrote: "I’d like to mention that despite the gloomy character of the story, it has a lot of humor in it. Section six makes a good piece for a standing comedy...."
I'm glad you found the little gems of humor throughout this book! Good god, your post had me in stitches! "If I lived in say 17th century, in my youth, I would challenge to a duel many a man just on the question of Free Will. Maybe just one man. The first one." LOL!!! Are you implying here that you'd lose your duel? I have faith in ya! You'd win, with your snark powers! ;-) And the quote you picked is perfect. I, too, am a lazybones. What better sport for a lazy bones than reading??? Just remember this quote anytime life kicks ya while you're down: if nothing else, at least you can proclaim loudly and proudly "I may be a mere man, but I am a superb lazybones!!!" and feel super awesome about yourself as they cart you off to the looney bin! ;-)
Michaelx wrote: "I feel like if I was talking to him in a room one on one I'd like to grab him by the scruff of his neck and shout in the most friendly way possible, 'Cut the bullshit!'..."
Tee-hee! I think our underground man would be honored that you'd want to snatch him up! Then he'd probably cry. I feel sorry for him, too. And I posted about my different reading experience with this book in another group before I left for work yesterday. I realize that, all these years, reading this book each winter, I was merely sharing in our narrator's anger, spite, and despair. Doestoevsky is perfect with his psychological analyses of human thinking. And, as I was reading our second 'chunk' of the book, I began to find myself thinking of Charles Bukowski. Your comments about the disastrous dinner party (and really just the entire scene itself) reminded me of a story I once read about Bukowski. Apparently, he was drunk (ain't that one a surprise!) at a party, and, being his incredibly obnoxious self, he ended up in a verbal argument with another guy. The guy pulled a gun on him and pointed it right in Bukowski's face. Bukowski's response: (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Go ahead! Shoot me! I've been wishing I were dead for my whole life, but I'm too much of a f*&king coward to kill myself; do me a favor and just blow my brains out!" I LOVE that little anecdote. Needless to say, the guy got really creeped out by that reaction and promptly left! Maybe Bukowski is our underground man! (I know that's not possible, according to the laws of linear time...it was a joke!). I tried to find the video with the abovementioned story, but couldn't. I found this instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHRcK...
That'll give you guys something to think on for a while! I'll try and post more later as long as we aren't too busy at work. If we are busy, I'll definitely be back tomorrow...until then, happy reading, folks!
~Teresa~
Teresa,Thank you for your moral support for me and all the lazybones in the world:) I'll try to remember that line:)
Wishing you great mini-vacation!
At my work, December is the busiest month. I'll be living in the office the whole month and then some in January. Including Christmas Eve and the day after Christmas. At least I will have access to the internet and read comments on GR. When will I pull myself out of the reading-multiple-books bog? - I don't know. Not this year for sure:)
I’d like to drop maybe my last comment on Part I.Yes, I’m still thinking about Part I. Sorry!
As I mentioned earlier, I am very lazy and therefore I think. Slow.
Back to one of the early questions - who is man of action?
We talked about it, but here is another ‘definition’ that, I think, could be helpful to clarify some issues.
In section 5, Part I, the underground man says, “…I emphatically repeat: ingenuous people and active figures are all active simply because they are dull and narrow-minded. How to explain it? Here’s how: as a consequence of their narrow-mindedness, they take the most immediate and secondary causes for the primary ones, and thus become convinced more quickly and easily than others that they have found an INDISPUTABLE basis for their doings, and so they feel at ease; and that, after all, is the main thing. For in order to begin to act, one must first be completely at ease, so that no more doubts remain…”
To illustrate this, let’s take a look how things are done in science, in particular, mathematical physics, (since our hero likes the word mathematics:). Let’s say we have a mathematical model (or theory – it’s a synonym here) of a natural phenomenon. We make various measurements, they perfectly fit the model. The author gets the Nobel Prize. And suddenly, for certain types of measurements the model starts to lie. Actually, the experimenters are happy. Woohoo!, we found a limitation for the model applicability! The theorists begin working on another, broader, more sophisticated theory to have the previous model as a particular case.
But now let’s go back to daily life. Haven’t you seen people who worship their ideas and theories so much that they take them as ABSOLUTE truths, and they energetically act upon them (our hero would say one feels comfort in the absolute, there’s no risk to make a mistake). To convince such people that they might be wrong before they act is impossible. And only fatal consequences of their actions might prove them wrong. Sometimes.
I think Dostoyevsky had in mind those people. And here’s why.
Richard Pevear in his Forward for the book points out that Notes from Underground was D’s response to another novel written around that time, namely, ‘What’s To Be Done’ by N.G. Chernyshevsky. In which, Chernyshevsky bases upon notions of normal interests, natural law and the denial of free will. In Soviet Union this book was in high school curriculum. I don’t remember anything of it, except one fact that there was a guy who slept on nails. (To prepare himself for big actions?)
That means D wrote his novel as part of a polemic in that faraway history, but he wrote it in artistic form, so for us it still has value, although some details are hard to understand. Apparently D was frightened by men like Chernyshevsky, who believed they had the ‘right’ theory of man and were eager to apply it in life, upon real people.
In particular, they were evidently declaring that man’s wanting was calculable like anything else, and since his wanting is calculable, plus they have the theory that predicts things, man, if put in the right conditions, can be lead to the ‘right’ behavior.
And here’s finally what I wanted to say about Free Will in the novel.
I don’t think our hero was trying to prove verbally that free will exists. Maybe he was testing it through his behavior, but that’s another question. What he was trying to say to his ‘opponents’ was, in my words, that even if free will is an illusion, you can’t possibly know what man’s wanting is caused by, and hence you can’t put it into your calculation, and hence your theory predicts nothing even close to reality. Our man literally says, “…wanting so far still depends on the devil knows what…”
P.S. Vladimir Lenin wrote a long article in the beginning of 20th century, with the same title ‘What’s To Be done’. In it, he basically sets forth a program as to how to build a strong revolutionary party in Russia. In reality, afterwards, that party eventually developed into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. With the benefit of the hind sight we may say either Lenin’s wanting was horrible or he miscalculated something badly.
Wow, Bigollo! I'm impressed with your deep thoughts on this! Yes, it just MAY be a teeny tiny little book, but it IS incredibly dense with psychological commentary. I'm getting ready to go to a doctor's appt. so I won't be able to respond in any great detail until a little later. BUT- after reading your comments, I DEFINITELY think you should read Crime & Punishment. I think you'd like it! And don't worry about still being on Part 1! Whatever it takes to make you enjoy your reading as much as possible. I plan on re-listening to part 2 today while I'm on my way to and from the doc and while I'm waiting. The main reason I'm staying on track so well is because I am the 'leader' lol! So read at your own pace, and , please, let us know if we are dropping any spoilers! Thanks! Cheers, and happy reading, all!
~Teresa~
Thank you Teresa,Yes, Crime and Punishment along with Idiot and Karamazov Brothers are on my list to read. It’s same old story though – ‘there’re so many books and so little time’.
And yes, investigating human psyche through fictional characters by good authors is what attracts me in fiction probably first of all. I am also interested in thought experiment in fiction at the moment. And so books by Kafka and Camus are on my immediate list. They are all pretty short btw, and so could be read in this group:)
You are doing very good job as the leader btw. You always respond, and hence, the thread does not dry out.
I on the other hand am not so happy with my comments, especially the last one. That’s too long! And the thing is I wanted to say even more but had to shrink myself down not to write more than Dostoyevsky. And because of that, some of my thoughts are not very well connected to each other. I have to adjust! Or maybe it’s the book that makes me so verbose.. Damm underground man!
LOL...yes, this guy will give you a mixed bag when it comes to reactions and first thoughts. As I've mentioned too many times now, I read this book each winter, so I've probably read it about 10-12 times, and STILL I have a different experience with it each time...And PLEASE, do not worry about your verbose posts. Have you seen some of MY posts? LOL...I've literally ran out of characters and had to kinda 'stitch' two posts together once. Now THAT'S long! It seems to me as though you kind of 'work it out' as you write, so by all means, write away! There aren't that many writing thoughts anyway, so you, Michaelx, & I should write as much as we can! I'm eager to get some feedback on part 2! Just hang in there, and keep them posts a coming! I'm thoroughly enjoying them!
~Teresa~
Well, its December 18th, and we haven't even started our final thoughts! I'm a bad group leader :-( But I know holidays and family probably have everyone scrambling. How bout we have a little extension 'til the 20th? Let me know if that's a problem....Thanks, and happy reading!
~Teresa~
Short & Sweet Treats
Books mentioned in this topic
The Metamorphosis (other topics)We (other topics)
The Metamorphosis (other topics)
Notes from Underground (other topics)
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (other topics)
Thomas Mann described Dostoyevsky as "an author whose Christian sympathy is ordinarily devoted to human misery, sin, vice, the depths of lust and crime, rather than to nobility of body and soul" and Notes from Underground as "an awe- and teror- inspiring example of this sympathy."
Our discussion leader is Teresa!
I would like to extend a very big thank you to her for guiding us in discussing this classic!