Notes from Underground

[Mitya]

I just checked this out from the library but haven't opened it yet. Do any of you have plot synopses (minus spoilers), tips on how to read it, favorite parts, etc? What to look for? Thanks. I hope to be more informed when I next post on this work.

[axon]

sorry to disappoint you (or not :p), this book has no plot...at least the first part doesn't. It is probably Dostoevsky's hardest and at the same time most important work. The ideas and the philosophy he develops in the Notes, protrude in all of his following novels.

As I said, it is difficult to read, especially the first part, and is hard to grasp at the first or second reading. Don't get discouraged though, and take his ideas rather lightly as they are ment to be somewhat funny...yet still extremely important.

You will notice that it is a book of paradoxes, and you will not now whether the Underground man is telling you the truth or laughing in your face. Also some sentences, and whole pages even, seemed to be written very clumsily...this is done on purpose. Dostoevsky took perfectly "good" sentences, and jumbled the words around - this technique is rather common in order to slow a reader down before an important notion or theme. That is precisely why this is not a "page turner".

My advice is to read this book by seeing the proposition and negation at the same time - only then can you see the real meaning.

The Underground Man is one of the most interesting characters in all of literature, even more interesting the Stavrogin from the Devils. After reading the book, you will see that you have been encountering his ideas in other books from completely different style of authors you have read in the past..."Of Mice and Men" is an example.

Notes From Underground is probably my favorite, or at least second favorite, work by Dostoevsky. ENJOY IT! and if you have any questions, post them....I have studied this book rather extensively  

[axon]

also, which translation/edition are you reading?

[paul]

"The Notes" and "The Grand Inquisitor" are my favourite works of Dostoevsky-  his humour is quite evident in the Notes- you'll enjoy it!

[Mitya]

It's a Dover Thrift Edition, I picked it because it was the slimmest paperback edition in the library  . Not a completely well-thought-out choice but, hey, I was in a hurry. Constance Garnett translated it, though, and it's unabridged. I've gotten a chance to read the first couple of pages and it's intriguing and strange. Any book that begins anything like "I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man" catches my interest immediately.

Thanks for the comments thus far. I'm glad I've come to a place where Dostoevsky is so appreciated and so studied. I'm sure I will enjoy the book.

[Mogwai]

Yes, 'Notes' is very good!  I've read it twice and I couldn't put it down both times.  It's a must-read every year...let us know what you think of it, Mitya, once you read it...

[Ivan]

I've also read it twice and enjoyed it both times...
The Underground Man is a satire on the ideas in Chernyshevsky's book, What is to be Done?
Chernyshevsky was responsible for enflaming Russian socialist/"nihilist" movements by supporting utilitarianism, science and "egoism."  
The Underground Man represents the end, the product, the overall impossibility of Chernyshevsky's ideas.  You'll probably say to yourself, "man this guy is weird, or why in the world would he do that?"  That's what Dostoevsky wanted you to say because in saying that you automatically take sides against Chernyshevsky and the ideals he represents.
As I said in a different post, the Underground Man is the outcome of decadence (hence the term "under" which contrasts the "over" in Nietzsche's overman).  
The underground man sometimes refutes his own personality, but this is Dostoevsky showing that persuing this Chernshevsky(ish) worldview is not even as logical as it seems.  

[Mitya]

Ooh, satire! I love satire. I do have some questions that I wrote down while reading the first six Notes. If the answers are blatantly obvious, forgive my ignorance. Or if I'm completly missing the point of Notes, please set me straight.

UM writes to "you." Who does he want the reader to be?

Does he intend the Notes to be read at all, or is it one last great private joke?

What does he want the reader to learn from him?

I'm really enjoying this book so far!

[axon]

>>UM writes to "you." Who does he want the reader to be?

I believe the reader could be anyone, and he did not have anyone "specific" in mind.

Does he intend the Notes to be read at all, or is it one last great private joke?

He does intend for the notes to be read, and it is one big joke! hehe...and what a joke at that, filled with so much seriousness that it is hard to handle. Haha...this is a paradox...just like the whole book. Take it lightly, and like I said before, take the positive and negative, and view them together.

What does he want the reader to learn from him?

That is a really dificult question...and many people have different answers for it. I believe that ultimately he wants us to learn to be free. This concept takes a lot of writing to explain...hopefully I will send an essay of mine to the admin which somewhat pertains to this question, and gives my interpratation.

[Ivan]

I agree with axon on the first two points but I would like to add a little something for your last question.

What does he want the reader to learn from him?

I think that the reader is suppose to learn how to NOT be like the Underground Man.  If we were a socialist, a Russian "nihilist" and an egoist we would turn out to be just like the unfortunate underground man.  This piece was written directly as a response to a Russian historical movement that was surrounded by these same characteristics (egoism, nihilism, socialism, etc).  This is where the satire comes into play--- the ultimate end of this historical movement, for the individual, is the UM.  We are suppose to be afraid of this end and thus (as a Russian contemporary of Dostoevsky) turn away from socialism, egoism, etc...

This is, of course, a simplification but I hope it helps.

[axon]

I've just posted my very short essay about the stone wall. For the most part, these thoughts are just my speculations, especially on the three levels where one could be, and what is beyond the stone wall. Let me know what you guys think.

[Ivan]

The satire is that he speaks of breaking down walls, but then he doesn't.
Beyond the stone wall = the Ubermensch.

[axon]

>>Beyond the stone wall = the Ubermensch

the overman, really? is that what you think?

I don't agree. I rwote that essay a while back...and now my ideas of what is behind the wall changed a bit; there are currently two theories in my head: 1. finding Christ/taking the (successful) leap into the abyss, and 2. death and suicide.

The second one is probably the more interesting and is mainly fueled by Kirilov from the Devils...more explanations to follow later.

BTW...did you know Ivan, that Kirilov is the probably the most important character for all existentialists? Camus, for example, wrote a play based on the Devils, which revolved around Kirilov as the main character. The myth of sysyphus is mostly about Kirilov as well. The whole speach about suicide, first to the narrator and then two peter is explained in many of sartre's essays as well

[paul]

Axon- read your essay: I agree- although the Notes were a prelude to C&P, the idea of  the Superman should be kept separate.
   FMD rails against the chicken coop/crystal palace/anthill as too high a price to pay for a man's free will- however irrational it may be.  The wall fascinates me- find something new every time I read it (here in Toronto we have thunder storms, so it's a nice day to read).  Should we leave it at : breaching the wall=non conformity?  I'd like to hear you address the issue of consciousness in this context-I believe it's that important.  For even though our hero sees the wall, he's quite content to sit in his cellar and "conscious sitting with arms folded"....and why?- probably because he can.  Conscious desperation.  He'd rather be an abnormal man than a normal animal- for he says the real man is conscious.
   Sorry I'm rambling a little- I go on a tangent and I'm not sure how to access the original letter I'm responding to without erasing this reply-  so I lose my bearing.
    This may be incorrect, but I've always believed the "l'homme de la nature et de la verite" was the only one capable of climbing the wall, for the conscious man is incapable of anything.
    Bear with me- haven't read him for a while- P

[Ivan]

1. finding Christ/taking the (successful) leap into the abyss, and 2. death and suicide.

Do you have textual evidence of this or is this just a divergence on the philosophy?

that Kirilov is the probably the most important character for all existentialists?

Erm, I'm going to have to disagree a thousand-fold.  Suicide is a motif that extends way beyond Kirilov... Dostoevsky must have gotten this from his sources of "cheap literature"  

Camus, for example, wrote a play based on the Devils, which revolved around Kirilov as the main character.

 
Which one?

The myth of sysyphus is mostly about Kirilov as well.

I think you are mixing up the motifs of existentialism (something Dostoevsky was A PART of, not the BEGINNING OF) with people directly quoting Dostoevsky.  All these people you mentioned (Camus, Sartre, D) are existential reactionaries .  They are dealing with the same kind of questions, questions that have been around for a lot longer than D.