50
edits
Notes from Underground: Difference between revisions
→Critical Perspectives
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
==Critical Perspectives== | ==Critical Perspectives== | ||
Notes from the underground is an important work in Western European history. " It has attracted attention for many reasons. For one , it contains an all-out assault on Enlightenment rationalism and the idea of progress which foreshadows many such assaults in the mid-to-late twentieth century" (WSU). Another example of this novels' importance is the fact that it has one of the first anti-heroes in fiction. " It portrays a protagonist utterly lacking every trait of the Romantic hero and living out a futile life on the margins of society. Such figures were to dominate much serious fiction in the mid-twentieth century" (WSU). | Notes from the underground is an important work in Western European history. " It has attracted attention for many reasons. For one , it contains an all-out assault on Enlightenment rationalism and the idea of progress which foreshadows many such assaults in the mid-to-late twentieth century" (WSU). Another example of this novels' importance is the fact that it has one of the first anti-heroes in fiction. " It portrays a protagonist utterly lacking every trait of the Romantic hero and living out a futile life on the margins of society. Such figures were to dominate much serious fiction in the mid-twentieth century" (WSU). | ||
=== Literary Criticism === | |||
=== The underground man: A question of meaning by Linda Williams === | |||
Linda L. Williams explores Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man in her article entitled The underground man: a question of meaning. Williams looks at how the main character searches for meaning and value in his self and his life from the very first words of his notes exclaiming that he is a “sick [and] spiteful man” (1). She also examines how Dostoyevsky uses the underground man to “question whether human beings can be their own source of meaning” (Williams 1). This novel is a reaction to the ideas prevalent in Western Europe at the time that “reason provides the foundation for all knowledge” (Williams 1). | |||
Williams looks at why the Underground man refers to himself as a “zloi” which has been translated as spiteful but in actuality carries the connotation of immorality and malicious behavior in which a person isn’t by nature, but is because they are made that way due to circumstances that person has control over. The author of the article contends that this is because the underground man’s “refusal to attach the common man’s meaning to himself and due to his exaggerated consciousness and vanity.” | |||
In part two we see the underground man’s attempt to “make his life as meaningful to others as it is to him” (Williams 2). This is done through several attempts by the underground man to be noticed by a young officer, some old friends, and Liza. With the young officer the underground man’s desire for the “officer to step aside becomes a measure of the meaning and value of the underground man as a person” (Williams 3). In the case of his meeting with the old friends, we witness the night through his very subjective eyes in which he has “one humiliation piled on top of another” (Williams 4) in his attempt to present himself as having meaning and value in the eyes of others. Since the underground man has the ability to blame his behavior on alcohol as opposed to deliberate action, Williams contends that Dostoyevsky proves that “when an individual is the sole foundation for meanings and values, he may twist them any way he likes” | |||
( Williams 4). | |||
Through his experience with Liza, we see that “his existence has finally been affirmed just as if [the officer] had thrown him through the tavern window” (Williams 5). He then must change the “significance of the encounter with Liza to recapture the sarcasm of his vain ego” (Williams 6) because he has failed to prove himself of any value to anyone other than someone he sees as lower than himself. He attempts to regain control over what he feels like he has lost by asserting himself in a position of power over Liza by insulting her and then exerting “domination and possession over her body” (Williams 6). The underground man tries to “rationalize his sick, zloi act away [by giving her] money” (Williams 6), but Liza’s refusal to accept it along with “all its implications” (Williams 6) reveals what Williams calls the ugly truth about him. | |||
The underground man is incapable of loving anyone due to his unlimited vain ego. Further more, it is this ego that has led him to commit an act that “in the nineteenth century was considered more terrible than murder” (Williams 7) hence the reason why the term originally used in he beginning of the text as zloi which is translated as spiteful. Williams then goes on to say that “The underground cannot be his own foundation for meaning” and to Dostoevsky “the foundation of meaning does not lie in science or in Chernyshevsky’s rational egoism but in placing others interests before your own—in genuinely loving others” (Williams 7). | |||
The author looks at the underground man’s motives in a manner that is easy to understand although the character himself is not. I agree with Williams’s depiction of the underground man’s search and failure to gain the respect of his colleagues which only served to push him into farther underground. In the last moments when he has to reconcile with the fact that he can neither give nor receive love seals his fate in the underground where he is writing from years later. It is least likely that he will encounter another chance to escape. In the underground we will find him languishing untll his death. | |||
==External Links and Resources== | ==External Links and Resources== | ||