Notes from Undeground II

[al]

Hey, I'm looking for opinions. Above and beyond a critique of empiricism, romanticism, liberalism, enlightened self-interest, is it fair to read Notes From Undeground as an allegory for God's gift of free will to humanity?? The UM has free will, for example, he deliberately decides not to go to the doctor even though he is sick, etc, etc. Further, humans are inherently sinful, after the fall, as evidenced in the UM's depravity and Zverdev's pomposity, etc, etc.

Assuming a Christian reading is valid, having established free will and man's sinful nature, what redeems?

[Ivan]

Hmm...
I'm not sure I would agree that this work has much of a deliberate Christian message.  It is, however, a Christian work inasmuch as it is a satire against a worldview that is not Christian.

Assuming a Christian reading is valid, having established free will and man's sinful nature, what redeems?

I would say that this kind of reading is not valid mainly because nothing redeems in this work (unless my memory has failed me).  And it isn't his free will that gets him into trouble as much as it is his egoism.  And it isn't his sinful nature that gets him into trouble as much as it is, again, his egoism.

The UM is displaying free will and other Christian sinful traits but for the sake of his own needs and demands.  This is what separates him from other Christian characters (at least from the standpoint of Christian authors).  He shows no mercy and no love, no compassion and is not redeemed.  He is the result of a "harmful" worldview.

[Lev]

I'm not sure if this is really helpful, since I can't get my hands on the book quoted, but someone on the internet wrote the following:
'From his other writings we know that in Notes from the Underground Dostoevsky had planned "to advocate Christian faith as a means of attaining moral freedom," yet "that swine of a [Russian] censor" (as Dostoevsky called him) wouldn't allow him to publish a Christian message through the voice of such an unChristian character. Dostoevsky complained that the government censor suppressed the place where from all this I deduced the need for faith and Christ."'
Like I said, I can't confirm that. The writer cites "Leatherbarrow, Dostoevsky, 68." William J. Leatherbarrow is the author's name, I think. I'd love to know if that's really true or not. Does anyone here have access to that book?
In my opinion, such a reading would not be inconsistent with his later works -- . I also think that Dostoyevsky presents many characters who try to find redemption and a way through "the wall" via different means... Kirillov is the most revealing example to me of such a struggle... but I think Dostoyevsky shows the despair behind his actions. Kirillov talks a lot about will. Free will is certainly not an evil thing... it is a gift. But it is often used for evil. Also, I would say that the Underground Man's egoism does have it's root in his sinful nature, and wouldn't be possible without free will...

[Rinehart]

Above and beyond a critique of empiricism, romanticism, liberalism, enlightened self-interest, is it fair to read Notes From Undeground as an allegory for God's gift of free will to humanity??

yes.

[Lev]

That quote I mentioned is also found in Richard Pevear's forward to the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of The Notes from Underground. I suppose that is confirmation enough. Interesting -- he says it refers to the tenth chapter of I think the first part. It's a shame that those cuts are lost .