1,254
edits
Notes from Underground: Difference between revisions
m
Fixed some formatting issues
m (Fixed some formatting issues) |
|||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
''Notes from Underground'' is considered to be Dostoevsky's first major literary work during the second phase of his writing, or in other words, the elements of social realism give way to "psychological, existential, and philosophical concerns" in his works (Newton). Clearly, the novel fights against scientific thinking, making its point by giving examples from the narrator's personal experiences. ''Notes from Underground'' stands the test of time as a work of great literary importance, and the Underground Man emerges "...into the vocabulary of the modern educated consciousness, and this character has now begun--like Hamlet, Don Quixote, Don Juan, and Faust--to take on the symbolic stature of one of the great archetypal literary creations," this written by Joseph Frank almost a hundred years after its first publication (Jones). | ''Notes from Underground'' is considered to be Dostoevsky's first major literary work during the second phase of his writing, or in other words, the elements of social realism give way to "psychological, existential, and philosophical concerns" in his works (Newton). Clearly, the novel fights against scientific thinking, making its point by giving examples from the narrator's personal experiences. ''Notes from Underground'' stands the test of time as a work of great literary importance, and the Underground Man emerges "...into the vocabulary of the modern educated consciousness, and this character has now begun--like Hamlet, Don Quixote, Don Juan, and Faust--to take on the symbolic stature of one of the great archetypal literary creations," this written by Joseph Frank almost a hundred years after its first publication (Jones). | ||
However, perhaps it is best to understand the time in which the novel was written. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s 1860s] were a busy time for both Europe and North America, a fact that the narrator points out by exclaiming, "Take this entire nineteenth century of ours during which even Buckle lived. Take Napoleon--both the great and the present one. Take North America--that eternal union. Take, finally, that ridiculous Schleswig-Holstein | However, perhaps it is best to understand the time in which the novel was written. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s 1860s] were a busy time for both Europe and North America, a fact that the narrator points out by exclaiming, "Take this entire nineteenth century of ours during which even Buckle lived. Take Napoleon--both the great and the present one. Take North America--that eternal union. Take, finally, that ridiculous Schleswig-Holstein"(1266). America struggles with a raging Civil War that ripped the country in two. The reference to Napoleon, of course, refers to the French emporers by that name, both of whom engaged in numerous battles. The mention of Schleswig-Holstein refers to Prussia taking that holding from Denmark, who had controlled it for almost a hundred years. Finally, Buckle wrote ''History of Civilization in England'', in which he concludes that "with the developement of civilization wars will cease" (Jones). So, the historical theme for the 1860's appears to be, for the most part, wars. | ||
Let's not forget what happens in Russia at this same time. Russia goes through the Great Reforms, a time of political instability. During this four year period, society began to notice an uprising of groups within the society; these will eventually--but not at this particular time--lead to political parties ([http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~kimball/cvl.pbl.sixties.htm Kimball]). Thus, began the modern revolutionary movements in Russia. | Let's not forget what happens in Russia at this same time. Russia goes through the Great Reforms, a time of political instability. During this four year period, society began to notice an uprising of groups within the society; these will eventually--but not at this particular time--lead to political parties ([http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~kimball/cvl.pbl.sixties.htm Kimball]). Thus, began the modern revolutionary movements in Russia. | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
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). | 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.” | 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” | 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). | (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. | 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 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 126: | Line 121: | ||
*Scanlan, James P. "The Case against Rational Egoism in Dostoevsky's ''Notes from Underground''." ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' 60.3 (1999): 549-567. | *Scanlan, James P. "The Case against Rational Egoism in Dostoevsky's ''Notes from Underground''." ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' 60.3 (1999): 549-567. | ||
*''Novelguide.com''. "Notes from the Underground". March 2006 [<http://www.novelguide.com/notesfromtheunderground/metaphoranaylysis.html>. | *''Novelguide.com''. "Notes from the Underground". March 2006 [<http://www.novelguide.com/notesfromtheunderground/metaphoranaylysis.html>.] | ||
*Williams, Linda. "The underground man: A question of meaning." ''Studies in the novel.'' Summer 1995, Vol. 27, Issue 2. 129,12 | *Williams, Linda. "The underground man: A question of meaning." ''Studies in the novel.'' Summer 1995, Vol. 27, Issue 2. 129,12 | ||
*Steiner, George. "Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground and The Gambler." Norwalk, CT: The Heritage Press, 1967 and 1997. | *Steiner, George. "Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground and The Gambler." Norwalk, CT: The Heritage Press, 1967 and 1997. | ||
[[Category:World Literature]] | |||