If you listen really carefully while reading ‘Notes from the Underground’, you can hear the main character moaning in the utmost sense of self-gratifying pleasure.
The first section is his coming out: his realization, explanation, and coming of understanding of being a closeted masochist, under the guise of a remorseful sadist. And how he, as being, feels a sense of enlightenment and higher moral ground for being able to readily identify, accept, and become what he is. It is through this base of a twisted ‘I think, therefore I am’, that he expands any and all further thoughts throughout this piece (which I’m sure we were all delighted to read).
Dismissing everything else he’s said, because frankly, I’d be able to write an essay analyzing and arguing them (and on why he feels pleasure from his guilt/the concept of pleasure), you’re probably wondering why he’s moaning while you read (my first paragraph). And that’s because he’s successfully thrown the reader (or at least me) into a tub filled with distress.
-Below I’m just ranting-
This part is me saying why this reading is annoying, and if you enjoyed it, then bravo – you prevented his elaborate scheme of milking pleasure.
I’m just going to list them because, as I’ve mentioned, I could write an essay on his blabber. Firstly, he gives no space for the reader to interject, in fact, he stuffs words into the reader’s mouth. Secondly, it may seem like he plays devil’s advocate, but really he’s just bolstering his ego. Thirdly, because he’s writing, reading, and speaking to himself at this point, he drags the conversation/topic three-fold. There’s probably a few more, but honestly I’d just like to stop thinking about this for a good while.
(I’ve only read till pg. 347, so maybe the story shifts, I don’t know).
In general, his contemplation very readily mimics the tone and thought processes of a philosophical piece. There are two main reasons & motivations for reading: for enjoyment, and/or for knowledge – the matter it’s conveyed/relayed is debatable in regards to how easily digestible a piece is. With these two factors in mind this piece can most definitely be enjoyed. In regards to enjoyment, it’s personal taste. Regarding obtaining knowledge, it comes in a few more forms of types of interest: one could be deconstructing the piece and finding delight in understanding it itself; another could be learning the hints of philosophical tidbits here and there, the puzzling together of a personality and how & why it ticks, the smaller insights to the abstract nature of man – etc.
From what I’ve read, I haven’t enjoyed this story, and I haven’t learned much, so in that sense I’ve felt a stifling accrued general feeling of both unproductively wasting time & frustration of how well he’s able to hurl versed garbage (not garbage as in worthless, but as in excessive) while spindling truth and transitions to prolonged it. So bravo. For at least one reader, the main character has derived pleasure from. Bravo Dostoevsky, for your genius.
I whole heartedly agree with you. Throughout most of the passage Dostoyevsky rambles on and is constantly manipulating the story, but from my understanding I believe that aside from the stories he is speaking about his own experiences and his inner feelings. He says that he wishes he was “normal” at times, he doesn’t want to be intelligent he wants to be a regular person. All in all I feel like the passage is about Dostoyevsky reflecting on his life.
I definitely agree with the fact that the speaker is super long-winded, and it is super frustrating because he is on a continuous rant. Furthermore, he is an unreliable narrator because he is inconsistent and even admits at some points throughout the text that he was lying. Throughout his, “rant,” we learn more about who he is as a person; he is incapable of making decisions, has no desire to interact with others, and definitely has a very bitter view of life. While reading, “Notes from the Underground,” I just felt very tired and annoyed, listening to the reader continuously rant about life, while also being contradictory, which made me more upset.
This is in reply to akong.1. I definitely agree with what youre saying and how the narrator just rambles words on and on and on. There doesnt even seem to be a sense that the novel will stop. And the worst thing is that the story doesn’t even make sense. This is why, I also, along with you, hate it so much.
On a second thought, it make be that the narrator is so in the moment that there is a lot of things just coming into his mind and he’s just writing it. This is one of the times where i can say that a little bit too much of the good thing is bad for you.
First of all, I would just like to point out how I mentioned in class several times through the semester that I hated this book, and I was positive that no one would like it, and after reading part I again, the sentiment still stands.
One thing I would like to point out is the lack of reliability of the narrator. In the very beginning of chapter I, he goes on for half a page about how it was annoying to deal with people who don’t seem to be on the same intellectual level as him while he was working as an officer and that he treated them badly. which gives the reader an immediate impression of arrogance. I don’t even know why he even thinks so highly of himself, the guy sits in a corner of his room for hours at a time. Anyway, after going on this entire spiel about his job, he then turns around and says “I was lying about myself just now when I said that I was a nasty official. I lied out of spite” (pg 636). This makes him an unreliable and untrustworthy narrator, and it makes it very hard to differentiate when he is telling the truth and when he is lying. This also becomes more evident as the book goes on.
Although he rambles about nothing for 90 percent of the time, he does say enlightening things once in a while. He brings up the concept of the spontaneous man/ man of action. The man of action, i believe, is what he calls everyday normal people. the man of action is a person who has not been enlightened or has not truly understood the meaning of life. The fact that Dostoyevsky is an existentialist writer gives us a clearer understanding of why the narrator has these views. By definition, existentialism is “a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom, and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe”.
Before reading part II of notes from the underground, I assumed that the main character would continue to contradict himself and continue being a hypocrite. Sure enough, after reading part II of notes from the underground, my assumption was correct. When the Underground Man wakes up with Liza, the prostitute next to him, he tries to tell her the she does not have to be a prostitute and could just get married for love since it is more important than happiness. They have a conversation and ends up with him giving Liza his address for her to see him, which she agreed to. Waiting for several days, he imagines lying to her if she showed up, but the next day he thinks he has done an amazing thing to be able to change a prostitute’s life over a conversation. He then fantasizes of a story where he ends up marrying her. Despite his “motivational speech” to Liza, of how she does not have to be a prostitute and him imagining of helping her away from that life, he ended up giving money to Liza after they slept with one another when she went to visit. Reading this made me frustrated because it was a waste of time reading about how he told Liza she could live a different life away from prostitution, inviting her over, having another conversation, and ending up trying to pay Liza for sleeping with him (which is prostitution). This means that he was trying to do the exact opposite of what he said he would do to help Liza.
The number one thing that would make me dislike somebody instantly is if they were a hypocrite. The underground man is a true hypocrite and gets under my skin very well in being one. It is the main reason why I dislike him and is probably why many of us do as well.
Is there anybody that does not dislike the underground man (hope not), if so, why? Or if you do dislike him as much as I do, is it because of his hypocrisy or something even more than that?
I agree that he is a hypocrite and he reminds me very much of another character I have read. The novella is called The Tunnel by Ernesto Sabato, who was an existential author. His story about an artist named Juan Pablo Castel who is obsessed with a women he only once saw at his art show. He makes up insane stories in his head and believes she is the only women in the world who would understand him. They end up getting together but as a result of his insanity he ends up killing her. These two remind me of one another because they make up situations in their heads that they believe to be true. Also, we only see the story from their perspective, and I wonder if it was from someone else’s perspective if they would seem as insane. Castel acted as though life was miserable, and had the same effect that the Underground Man has to me. If anyone has read The Tunnel, do you also see the connection?
I don’t really like the underground man but I empathize with him. His mindset is somewhat relatable. Everyone has had those moments where they want revenge on those who has wronged them. However, it is hard to root for someone with a twisted logic like him. In Part II chapter I, the underground man feels wronged by an officer which starts his obsession of being noticed by him. He simply wants the attention of the officer and to be seen as an equal but his efforts are overwhelming as he stalks the guy for two years. In this case, it is very extreme to attempts as many times as he did. The one time he finally does, he failed when he stumbled and then the officer just walks around him. Later on Part II, he invites himself to a celebratory dinner of his former classmate, Zverkov, getting promoted in the military. He didn’t even want to go to but nevertheless invites himself. He contemplates how to show off his superiority over his former classmates except it never goes well and he is often humiliated. As a result, he keeps going down this rabbit hole of getting even. While everyone has moved on, he will still keep thinking and thinking and do nothing in the end. Although I started to feel a little sad for how he is living his life, we all knows that it will take a lot to change someone like the underground man.
The underground man lives a life that many kids in high school. The constant bullying makes one seek revenge and even with all the failed attempts one person just waits for the day to prove all of them wrong and show that he/she is not the way they say they are. The underground man seeks revenge for the constant bullying that he endorses. He attempts to get his revenge every single chance he gets but fails everytime. I feel the underground mans pain because people constantly get bullied and do not not any way out of it besides getting revenge. The underground man relates to many kids in high school and the struggles they go through.
(Hopefully, this counts as a comment, since we need five of these bad boys.)
Upon finishing the Notes from the Underground, I still hate it, but I do better understand the fragility of the Underground man. But there is one main thing I’d like to address before going into this. In class everyone (I’m looking at you Professor Nolan), said that the Underground man failed in bumping into the police officer, and worse, he fell into the snow while attempting to bump into him. It was in the tavern (after someone was thrown out) that he went in looking for a fight (hoping to get thrown out). “I was standing by the billiard-table and in my ignorance blocking up the way, and he wanted to pass; he took me by the shoulders and without a word—without a warning or explanation—moved me from where I was standing to another spot and passed by as though he had not noticed me.” (pg. 662) He didn’t even fall, he didn’t do it on purpose, and he was just angry at how he was treated.
Next is what actually happened when he exacted his revenge, moments before he was planning on giving up: “Suddenly, three paces from my enemy, I unexpectedly made up my mind—I closed my eyes, and we ran full tilt, shoulder to shoulder, against one another! I did not budge an inch and passed him on a perfectly equal footing! He did not even look round and pretended not to notice it; but he was only pretending, I am convinced of that. I am convinced of that to this day! Of course, I got the worst of it—he was stronger, but that was not the point… [he goes on about his success]” (pg. 665) BUT HE SUCCEEDS! He doesn’t even fall after bumping into the policeman. And he writes about this high for a page or more so.
– Now back to point, after correcting the misinformation spread in class. I guess this is very much like gossip, where truths are only as good as one’s memory. (Yes, I went there. This is a 2850 class, not an introductory course.)
The Underground man is an insecure person who thrives by trying to justify his thoughts through the reinforcements of fantasy. He wishes one thing, but his awkwardness and lack of social practice (getting used to dealing with people) have caused him to fail with his intentions and cause him to dig his own grave. Why not back out? Why not climb out after the first scoop of dirt? Because it’s embarrassing. Hell, even I know that feeling. Ego mixed with pettiness and shame cause us to stand our ground. Sometimes we wise up and back out, but the Underground man hasn’t been in enough situations to build up a repertoire for doing.
– Side note, the second part helped way more than the first (I understand it was set in that way on purpose). And that’s because we actually see him interact with others in the second half. The first is just thoughts and speculations and tidbits of recollections, but the second part is a narrative. –
The Underground man lashes out as a defense mechanism. He doesn’t know how to deal with it, and even if he knew, the social flow of his mind’s narrative, tells him to act in comfort – to yell and blame, because he himself doesn’t want to be exposed as weak, as poor, as ugly, as an ignoble person who has nothing in life worth clinging onto. The best part of this story is when he breaks. He breaks down in front of Liza. He cries, pours his heart out. And for the first time, someone gets it.
The happy ending would be: he changes. A fairy tale ending, where they become friends. She visits him. She frees herself and marries her lover. He comes to her wedding as a grandpa-like figure.
But life isn’t so easy. And you can’t blame the characters. She should’ve left after he finished crying, and come back sometime later (maybe a few days), and slowly change him. But that wouldn’t have been Liza’s character. She too has a form of social denseness, failing to read the cues, and doesn’t think ahead. So she stays with him. And he, with his social ineptness, doesn’t know how to progress after this breakthrough/connection. So he relapses. Being overwhelmed by this situation, he doesn’t know how else to interact – so he blames her. He puts money in her hand as she leaves as a final spit to the face, and seeing she left the money behind, his suspicions of unaffirmed guilt swallow him whole as he runs out hoping to beg for forgiveness.
The Underground man is a fragile man. He has books, stories, but no experience. He dreams but flusters in life. He demeans because he doesn’t understand how one compliments. He thinks “with love one can live even without happiness.”
– Another side note before we end, and thanks for reading, I suppose: the Underground man, although possibly inherently spiteful, had no friends as a child. Was looked down upon and bullied. Turned to studying as a defense. In work, he had no friends. His face is ugly, in the sense he can’t properly express his emotions – fearing others will misunderstand him; looks are, after all, the first way people communicate. Therefore, he secludes himself further (why didn’t he just tell them? Well, he doesn’t have the tools to do so. He’s been secluded his whole childhood – he also never had a home/family. So he doesn’t know how to deal with it).
So why this? Why not that? Why didn’t he do this? He should’ve done that. I would’ve done that. Perhaps. But only because you’ve determined that through your experiences, and have come up with that solution. Too many a times, when it comes to well-developed characters (i.e. the Underground man and Liza – even his ‘servant’), we fail to consider the time, place, and more importantly, their lives. THIS IS NOT, however, applicable to 90% of horror movie tropes. Those people are just idiots.
In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes From Underground. Underground represents a bitter inner struggle for identity and importance in life. Weighed down by the most constraining chains of all, those of self-torment, the Underground Man possesses an internal hysteria so full of contradiction and ridicule that he works himself into a frenzied incoherence. I believe that this story deals with social and philosophical individualism. The narrator’s individualism can be classified as these two types due to his interactions with people and his existentialist viewpoints on life. Eventually, these two individualist traits lead the man to alienate himself and to separate himself from the social world.
If you listen really carefully while reading ‘Notes from the Underground’, you can hear the main character moaning in the utmost sense of self-gratifying pleasure.
The first section is his coming out: his realization, explanation, and coming of understanding of being a closeted masochist, under the guise of a remorseful sadist. And how he, as being, feels a sense of enlightenment and higher moral ground for being able to readily identify, accept, and become what he is. It is through this base of a twisted ‘I think, therefore I am’, that he expands any and all further thoughts throughout this piece (which I’m sure we were all delighted to read).
Dismissing everything else he’s said, because frankly, I’d be able to write an essay analyzing and arguing them (and on why he feels pleasure from his guilt/the concept of pleasure), you’re probably wondering why he’s moaning while you read (my first paragraph). And that’s because he’s successfully thrown the reader (or at least me) into a tub filled with distress.
-Below I’m just ranting-
This part is me saying why this reading is annoying, and if you enjoyed it, then bravo – you prevented his elaborate scheme of milking pleasure.
I’m just going to list them because, as I’ve mentioned, I could write an essay on his blabber. Firstly, he gives no space for the reader to interject, in fact, he stuffs words into the reader’s mouth. Secondly, it may seem like he plays devil’s advocate, but really he’s just bolstering his ego. Thirdly, because he’s writing, reading, and speaking to himself at this point, he drags the conversation/topic three-fold. There’s probably a few more, but honestly I’d just like to stop thinking about this for a good while.
(I’ve only read till pg. 347, so maybe the story shifts, I don’t know).
In general, his contemplation very readily mimics the tone and thought processes of a philosophical piece. There are two main reasons & motivations for reading: for enjoyment, and/or for knowledge – the matter it’s conveyed/relayed is debatable in regards to how easily digestible a piece is. With these two factors in mind this piece can most definitely be enjoyed. In regards to enjoyment, it’s personal taste. Regarding obtaining knowledge, it comes in a few more forms of types of interest: one could be deconstructing the piece and finding delight in understanding it itself; another could be learning the hints of philosophical tidbits here and there, the puzzling together of a personality and how & why it ticks, the smaller insights to the abstract nature of man – etc.
From what I’ve read, I haven’t enjoyed this story, and I haven’t learned much, so in that sense I’ve felt a stifling accrued general feeling of both unproductively wasting time & frustration of how well he’s able to hurl versed garbage (not garbage as in worthless, but as in excessive) while spindling truth and transitions to prolonged it. So bravo. For at least one reader, the main character has derived pleasure from. Bravo Dostoevsky, for your genius.
I whole heartedly agree with you. Throughout most of the passage Dostoyevsky rambles on and is constantly manipulating the story, but from my understanding I believe that aside from the stories he is speaking about his own experiences and his inner feelings. He says that he wishes he was “normal” at times, he doesn’t want to be intelligent he wants to be a regular person. All in all I feel like the passage is about Dostoyevsky reflecting on his life.
-Carlos Gratereaux
I definitely agree with the fact that the speaker is super long-winded, and it is super frustrating because he is on a continuous rant. Furthermore, he is an unreliable narrator because he is inconsistent and even admits at some points throughout the text that he was lying. Throughout his, “rant,” we learn more about who he is as a person; he is incapable of making decisions, has no desire to interact with others, and definitely has a very bitter view of life. While reading, “Notes from the Underground,” I just felt very tired and annoyed, listening to the reader continuously rant about life, while also being contradictory, which made me more upset.
This is in reply to akong.1. I definitely agree with what youre saying and how the narrator just rambles words on and on and on. There doesnt even seem to be a sense that the novel will stop. And the worst thing is that the story doesn’t even make sense. This is why, I also, along with you, hate it so much.
On a second thought, it make be that the narrator is so in the moment that there is a lot of things just coming into his mind and he’s just writing it. This is one of the times where i can say that a little bit too much of the good thing is bad for you.
First of all, I would just like to point out how I mentioned in class several times through the semester that I hated this book, and I was positive that no one would like it, and after reading part I again, the sentiment still stands.
One thing I would like to point out is the lack of reliability of the narrator. In the very beginning of chapter I, he goes on for half a page about how it was annoying to deal with people who don’t seem to be on the same intellectual level as him while he was working as an officer and that he treated them badly. which gives the reader an immediate impression of arrogance. I don’t even know why he even thinks so highly of himself, the guy sits in a corner of his room for hours at a time. Anyway, after going on this entire spiel about his job, he then turns around and says “I was lying about myself just now when I said that I was a nasty official. I lied out of spite” (pg 636). This makes him an unreliable and untrustworthy narrator, and it makes it very hard to differentiate when he is telling the truth and when he is lying. This also becomes more evident as the book goes on.
Although he rambles about nothing for 90 percent of the time, he does say enlightening things once in a while. He brings up the concept of the spontaneous man/ man of action. The man of action, i believe, is what he calls everyday normal people. the man of action is a person who has not been enlightened or has not truly understood the meaning of life. The fact that Dostoyevsky is an existentialist writer gives us a clearer understanding of why the narrator has these views. By definition, existentialism is “a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom, and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe”.
Before reading part II of notes from the underground, I assumed that the main character would continue to contradict himself and continue being a hypocrite. Sure enough, after reading part II of notes from the underground, my assumption was correct. When the Underground Man wakes up with Liza, the prostitute next to him, he tries to tell her the she does not have to be a prostitute and could just get married for love since it is more important than happiness. They have a conversation and ends up with him giving Liza his address for her to see him, which she agreed to. Waiting for several days, he imagines lying to her if she showed up, but the next day he thinks he has done an amazing thing to be able to change a prostitute’s life over a conversation. He then fantasizes of a story where he ends up marrying her. Despite his “motivational speech” to Liza, of how she does not have to be a prostitute and him imagining of helping her away from that life, he ended up giving money to Liza after they slept with one another when she went to visit. Reading this made me frustrated because it was a waste of time reading about how he told Liza she could live a different life away from prostitution, inviting her over, having another conversation, and ending up trying to pay Liza for sleeping with him (which is prostitution). This means that he was trying to do the exact opposite of what he said he would do to help Liza.
The number one thing that would make me dislike somebody instantly is if they were a hypocrite. The underground man is a true hypocrite and gets under my skin very well in being one. It is the main reason why I dislike him and is probably why many of us do as well.
Is there anybody that does not dislike the underground man (hope not), if so, why? Or if you do dislike him as much as I do, is it because of his hypocrisy or something even more than that?
I agree that he is a hypocrite and he reminds me very much of another character I have read. The novella is called The Tunnel by Ernesto Sabato, who was an existential author. His story about an artist named Juan Pablo Castel who is obsessed with a women he only once saw at his art show. He makes up insane stories in his head and believes she is the only women in the world who would understand him. They end up getting together but as a result of his insanity he ends up killing her. These two remind me of one another because they make up situations in their heads that they believe to be true. Also, we only see the story from their perspective, and I wonder if it was from someone else’s perspective if they would seem as insane. Castel acted as though life was miserable, and had the same effect that the Underground Man has to me. If anyone has read The Tunnel, do you also see the connection?
I don’t really like the underground man but I empathize with him. His mindset is somewhat relatable. Everyone has had those moments where they want revenge on those who has wronged them. However, it is hard to root for someone with a twisted logic like him. In Part II chapter I, the underground man feels wronged by an officer which starts his obsession of being noticed by him. He simply wants the attention of the officer and to be seen as an equal but his efforts are overwhelming as he stalks the guy for two years. In this case, it is very extreme to attempts as many times as he did. The one time he finally does, he failed when he stumbled and then the officer just walks around him. Later on Part II, he invites himself to a celebratory dinner of his former classmate, Zverkov, getting promoted in the military. He didn’t even want to go to but nevertheless invites himself. He contemplates how to show off his superiority over his former classmates except it never goes well and he is often humiliated. As a result, he keeps going down this rabbit hole of getting even. While everyone has moved on, he will still keep thinking and thinking and do nothing in the end. Although I started to feel a little sad for how he is living his life, we all knows that it will take a lot to change someone like the underground man.
The underground man lives a life that many kids in high school. The constant bullying makes one seek revenge and even with all the failed attempts one person just waits for the day to prove all of them wrong and show that he/she is not the way they say they are. The underground man seeks revenge for the constant bullying that he endorses. He attempts to get his revenge every single chance he gets but fails everytime. I feel the underground mans pain because people constantly get bullied and do not not any way out of it besides getting revenge. The underground man relates to many kids in high school and the struggles they go through.
(Hopefully, this counts as a comment, since we need five of these bad boys.)
Upon finishing the Notes from the Underground, I still hate it, but I do better understand the fragility of the Underground man. But there is one main thing I’d like to address before going into this. In class everyone (I’m looking at you Professor Nolan), said that the Underground man failed in bumping into the police officer, and worse, he fell into the snow while attempting to bump into him. It was in the tavern (after someone was thrown out) that he went in looking for a fight (hoping to get thrown out). “I was standing by the billiard-table and in my ignorance blocking up the way, and he wanted to pass; he took me by the shoulders and without a word—without a warning or explanation—moved me from where I was standing to another spot and passed by as though he had not noticed me.” (pg. 662) He didn’t even fall, he didn’t do it on purpose, and he was just angry at how he was treated.
Next is what actually happened when he exacted his revenge, moments before he was planning on giving up: “Suddenly, three paces from my enemy, I unexpectedly made up my mind—I closed my eyes, and we ran full tilt, shoulder to shoulder, against one another! I did not budge an inch and passed him on a perfectly equal footing! He did not even look round and pretended not to notice it; but he was only pretending, I am convinced of that. I am convinced of that to this day! Of course, I got the worst of it—he was stronger, but that was not the point… [he goes on about his success]” (pg. 665) BUT HE SUCCEEDS! He doesn’t even fall after bumping into the policeman. And he writes about this high for a page or more so.
– Now back to point, after correcting the misinformation spread in class. I guess this is very much like gossip, where truths are only as good as one’s memory. (Yes, I went there. This is a 2850 class, not an introductory course.)
The Underground man is an insecure person who thrives by trying to justify his thoughts through the reinforcements of fantasy. He wishes one thing, but his awkwardness and lack of social practice (getting used to dealing with people) have caused him to fail with his intentions and cause him to dig his own grave. Why not back out? Why not climb out after the first scoop of dirt? Because it’s embarrassing. Hell, even I know that feeling. Ego mixed with pettiness and shame cause us to stand our ground. Sometimes we wise up and back out, but the Underground man hasn’t been in enough situations to build up a repertoire for doing.
– Side note, the second part helped way more than the first (I understand it was set in that way on purpose). And that’s because we actually see him interact with others in the second half. The first is just thoughts and speculations and tidbits of recollections, but the second part is a narrative. –
The Underground man lashes out as a defense mechanism. He doesn’t know how to deal with it, and even if he knew, the social flow of his mind’s narrative, tells him to act in comfort – to yell and blame, because he himself doesn’t want to be exposed as weak, as poor, as ugly, as an ignoble person who has nothing in life worth clinging onto. The best part of this story is when he breaks. He breaks down in front of Liza. He cries, pours his heart out. And for the first time, someone gets it.
The happy ending would be: he changes. A fairy tale ending, where they become friends. She visits him. She frees herself and marries her lover. He comes to her wedding as a grandpa-like figure.
But life isn’t so easy. And you can’t blame the characters. She should’ve left after he finished crying, and come back sometime later (maybe a few days), and slowly change him. But that wouldn’t have been Liza’s character. She too has a form of social denseness, failing to read the cues, and doesn’t think ahead. So she stays with him. And he, with his social ineptness, doesn’t know how to progress after this breakthrough/connection. So he relapses. Being overwhelmed by this situation, he doesn’t know how else to interact – so he blames her. He puts money in her hand as she leaves as a final spit to the face, and seeing she left the money behind, his suspicions of unaffirmed guilt swallow him whole as he runs out hoping to beg for forgiveness.
The Underground man is a fragile man. He has books, stories, but no experience. He dreams but flusters in life. He demeans because he doesn’t understand how one compliments. He thinks “with love one can live even without happiness.”
– Another side note before we end, and thanks for reading, I suppose: the Underground man, although possibly inherently spiteful, had no friends as a child. Was looked down upon and bullied. Turned to studying as a defense. In work, he had no friends. His face is ugly, in the sense he can’t properly express his emotions – fearing others will misunderstand him; looks are, after all, the first way people communicate. Therefore, he secludes himself further (why didn’t he just tell them? Well, he doesn’t have the tools to do so. He’s been secluded his whole childhood – he also never had a home/family. So he doesn’t know how to deal with it).
So why this? Why not that? Why didn’t he do this? He should’ve done that. I would’ve done that. Perhaps. But only because you’ve determined that through your experiences, and have come up with that solution. Too many a times, when it comes to well-developed characters (i.e. the Underground man and Liza – even his ‘servant’), we fail to consider the time, place, and more importantly, their lives. THIS IS NOT, however, applicable to 90% of horror movie tropes. Those people are just idiots.
-Final side note: Yay, I’m done with 5 comments.
In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes From Underground. Underground represents a bitter inner struggle for identity and importance in life. Weighed down by the most constraining chains of all, those of self-torment, the Underground Man possesses an internal hysteria so full of contradiction and ridicule that he works himself into a frenzied incoherence. I believe that this story deals with social and philosophical individualism. The narrator’s individualism can be classified as these two types due to his interactions with people and his existentialist viewpoints on life. Eventually, these two individualist traits lead the man to alienate himself and to separate himself from the social world.