You might not be able to get everything right away but having a greater idea of the type of ideas he deals with and how he uses his characters to pit different belief systems against each other will help you struggle with this one. ![]() Though his conception of Despair is less emotional or psychological and more theological and philosophical, they aren't entirely unrelated.ĭon't let it discourage you from reading his other novels, especially his main "murder" novels (The Idiot, The Brothers K, The Possessed). Incidentally: Kierkegaard explored a similar idea - in his works it falls under the name of Despair - in his Sickness Unto Death and many of his other works. The book's departures from conventional narrative resolution, then, can be seen as techniques which foster the same feeling of Anxiety in the reader. He is too active, too nervous for that, always on the edge, vacillating between this new crime or that new kindness. Nor does he remain a completely static character in my mind. Eventually you stop trying to figure out what you just read based on your conceptions of what a book should be or do and instead try to grapple with it on its own terms.įor my own part, the Underground Man continued to live and grow in my mind precisely because the story did not grant me a resolution to any discernible character arc. But the bemusement recedes the more time you have away from the book. Dostoevsky plays his V chord over and over without ever resolving to the I. The story is an ugly one, and lacks any real catharsis, both of which likely contribute to your sense of bafflement (which I shared on my first reading). The real meat of the work, at least for those who lack the historical knowledge to identify the tropes and philosophy that D is playing with (I am myself regrettably ignorant of these, and will probably never get around to reading even part of Frank's biography), is extracted from the Underground Man's sense of deep anxiety, and the excruciating detail with which D portrays his neuroses. ![]() Notes From Underground is better read as a psychological exploration than as a traditional story (much in the same way as Tolstoy's Kreutzer Sonata, though the latter admittedly is more traditionally and tightly plotted). What should one take from it? What did you take from it? For better or for worse, C&P was a story with a plot, characters and a conclusion.īut what should I draw and learn from Notes from the underground? I've googled it, and have read some theories that seem shaky at best. So I wasn't taken aback when Notes from the underground had a similar theme.īut what got me what the futility of the tale. Now I remembered enough about C&P to be prepared for the depravity of Dostoyevsky's characters and the overtly grim view on humanity that they take. I remember (being forced to) reading and (Unbelievably ) enjoying Crime in Punishment in High school, so I chose another Fyodor Dostoyevsky novel Notes from the underground. It seemed wrong, so I made a deal with myself that I would read more classic novels. However, it occurred to me recently, that despite having read many a popular novel and fiction, I haven't allowed myself to enjoy what is considered classic literature. So, I've been lucky to be a person who has continued to read throughout my (somewhat) young adult life.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |