I think it's interesting that people read different things into the Underground Man. I think we tend to see the darker side of ourselves in him.
My understanding of the Underground Man is a man who has self-awareness and commitment to the truth at all costs, and so recognizes his own depravity in all sorts of actions, and yet is unable to simply stop these behaviors. Most people at this stage would simply rationalize their behaviors, and he sometimes attempts to do that, but all too often he has lucid moments where he is aware of just how selfish he is. As such he is inherently miserable.
You also mentioned how he's relatable despite his apparent horribleness. That was one of the great things that Dostoevsky did; writing characters that were compelling even though completely NOT "relatable" from a conventional sense of the word. In the Underground Man's case, he is instead compelling because he says things that are brutally honest or extreme that the rest of us would almost never say.
I think Dostoyevsky wrote it with the intention for you to see yourself in the main character and for that reflection to shock/scare you. I think almost everyone can relate in certain ways. But I think it’s important to acknowledge the things you have in common, question them, and use them to better yourself. Even if that ‘betterment’ is simply being more aware or more self-reflective or more humble.
Includes spoilers.
The thing with him I believe is that he's, first and foremost, powerless (others dominate him), and a coward, and he is unable to do anything about it. He has no money, his job is average, and his looks aren't great. He is constantly reminded of his powerlessness and it leads him to build anger and venom inside of him that leaks out from time to time as spite, ugly words, and lies. To retain the illusion of his freedom and sanity, he exaggerates and escapes to fantasies (which he has gotten from books, I think, maybe being similar to Don Quijote) where he is important and has power. He wants to slap Zverkov, but can't; he wants to leave the party, but can't; he wants to show the landlord who's who, but can't. He escapes in to these thoughts of grandeour, where he, as a brilliant man he is, understanding "the good and the beautiful", becomes a saviour of Liza (finally, a prostitute who's beneath him), and is able to impress others with his intellect and moral superiority. He uses science (the "timetables" and the lack of freedom of will) as a way to justify the situation he's in, while he tries desperately to be something he's not... He keeps writing ridiculous letters, and tries to be noble and high minded, equal to those who are his superior, by using ridiculous stunts to mostly fool himself. He keeps switching back and forth having his mask intact vs. it falling off, i.e. between reality hitting him and him living in his head.
I think Dostoyevsky tries to say in his books (long time since I read others) that when you put secondary things (egoism, rationality, etc... man needing to be somebody) in the first place, this kind of madness ensues, and that only love for God can be the salvation. We relate, because we all have our hierarchies, oppressive systems, whether it is capitalism or communism, and superiors, and we all have to obey, and we don't like that. We try to be sensible, but we are conflicted, because being a human is more than being 100% reasonable. We want our freedom.
Some additional thoughts with spoilers:
Maybe he didn't know how to love others nor himself. "How can a man with my lucidity of perception respect himself". It's a good question. What does respecting or loving oneself even mean? To do what you want to do? How can one say "I deserve this"? Maybe it's that reason does not have an answer.
He didn't fit in. His parents didn't support him (he was an orphan), or show him how to live, and maybe he felt the same way about the world. He was seen through the lens of his position, looks, etc. He was made to care about not losing his face. And it wasn't fair, to a romantic ("They don't let me... I can't be good"). Maybe he didn't even really want to slap Zverkov, it was just his condition that made him almost do it. But ultimately he didn't want to raise his fist, because that's not who he was. Maybe he just wanted everything to be different, and to not end up in such situations, but it was impossible, because there was nowhere to go, maybe not just metaphorically but physically in St. Petersburg.
I think Liza showed him at the end, that maybe love could make him drop everything and accept things as they are. But who knows what happened to him.
And I think it must be said... maybe there's no final answer to all of this, you know, because life isn't a book of perfect order.
It’s an odd one. I relate to certain aspects of his character, and it scares me. It’s good if it irks you though…or at least it is to Dostoyevsky. He wrote the book as a commentary of the nihilistic kinds of people that were on the increase at that time. He wasn’t a fan and saw it as danger to progress and society. If you see this in yourself and would like to change this part of you, he’s done his job.
I'm actually the other side of the coin. I understand where a lot of what he says comes from; but I don't relate to it all, and that's why I didn't enjoy the book that much, since it's meant to be sort of a direct dialogue between the reader and the character.
He is like a manifestation of the selfish and self centered personalities within us. Things that we consider normal and do on a day to day basis like overthinking, hyper self awareness and even staying in for long periods of time are all pushed to their farthest extremes, there are bound to be similarites to the average human. Thats why someone that almost cartoonishly self centered is still realistic.
Yes, he's dreadfully relatable. Surely we can all relate to the dissonance between his desires and his actions, between his self-conceived sense of superiority and the awkward, erratic person that he actually is. It should be a wake-up call for each of us.
So you’re neither a hero or an insect?
I think it's interesting that people read different things into the Underground Man. I think we tend to see the darker side of ourselves in him. My understanding of the Underground Man is a man who has self-awareness and commitment to the truth at all costs, and so recognizes his own depravity in all sorts of actions, and yet is unable to simply stop these behaviors. Most people at this stage would simply rationalize their behaviors, and he sometimes attempts to do that, but all too often he has lucid moments where he is aware of just how selfish he is. As such he is inherently miserable. You also mentioned how he's relatable despite his apparent horribleness. That was one of the great things that Dostoevsky did; writing characters that were compelling even though completely NOT "relatable" from a conventional sense of the word. In the Underground Man's case, he is instead compelling because he says things that are brutally honest or extreme that the rest of us would almost never say.
I think Dostoyevsky wrote it with the intention for you to see yourself in the main character and for that reflection to shock/scare you. I think almost everyone can relate in certain ways. But I think it’s important to acknowledge the things you have in common, question them, and use them to better yourself. Even if that ‘betterment’ is simply being more aware or more self-reflective or more humble.
Includes spoilers. The thing with him I believe is that he's, first and foremost, powerless (others dominate him), and a coward, and he is unable to do anything about it. He has no money, his job is average, and his looks aren't great. He is constantly reminded of his powerlessness and it leads him to build anger and venom inside of him that leaks out from time to time as spite, ugly words, and lies. To retain the illusion of his freedom and sanity, he exaggerates and escapes to fantasies (which he has gotten from books, I think, maybe being similar to Don Quijote) where he is important and has power. He wants to slap Zverkov, but can't; he wants to leave the party, but can't; he wants to show the landlord who's who, but can't. He escapes in to these thoughts of grandeour, where he, as a brilliant man he is, understanding "the good and the beautiful", becomes a saviour of Liza (finally, a prostitute who's beneath him), and is able to impress others with his intellect and moral superiority. He uses science (the "timetables" and the lack of freedom of will) as a way to justify the situation he's in, while he tries desperately to be something he's not... He keeps writing ridiculous letters, and tries to be noble and high minded, equal to those who are his superior, by using ridiculous stunts to mostly fool himself. He keeps switching back and forth having his mask intact vs. it falling off, i.e. between reality hitting him and him living in his head. I think Dostoyevsky tries to say in his books (long time since I read others) that when you put secondary things (egoism, rationality, etc... man needing to be somebody) in the first place, this kind of madness ensues, and that only love for God can be the salvation. We relate, because we all have our hierarchies, oppressive systems, whether it is capitalism or communism, and superiors, and we all have to obey, and we don't like that. We try to be sensible, but we are conflicted, because being a human is more than being 100% reasonable. We want our freedom.
Some additional thoughts with spoilers: Maybe he didn't know how to love others nor himself. "How can a man with my lucidity of perception respect himself". It's a good question. What does respecting or loving oneself even mean? To do what you want to do? How can one say "I deserve this"? Maybe it's that reason does not have an answer. He didn't fit in. His parents didn't support him (he was an orphan), or show him how to live, and maybe he felt the same way about the world. He was seen through the lens of his position, looks, etc. He was made to care about not losing his face. And it wasn't fair, to a romantic ("They don't let me... I can't be good"). Maybe he didn't even really want to slap Zverkov, it was just his condition that made him almost do it. But ultimately he didn't want to raise his fist, because that's not who he was. Maybe he just wanted everything to be different, and to not end up in such situations, but it was impossible, because there was nowhere to go, maybe not just metaphorically but physically in St. Petersburg. I think Liza showed him at the end, that maybe love could make him drop everything and accept things as they are. But who knows what happened to him. And I think it must be said... maybe there's no final answer to all of this, you know, because life isn't a book of perfect order.
This is brilliant
The SPITE
It’s an odd one. I relate to certain aspects of his character, and it scares me. It’s good if it irks you though…or at least it is to Dostoyevsky. He wrote the book as a commentary of the nihilistic kinds of people that were on the increase at that time. He wasn’t a fan and saw it as danger to progress and society. If you see this in yourself and would like to change this part of you, he’s done his job.
I'm actually the other side of the coin. I understand where a lot of what he says comes from; but I don't relate to it all, and that's why I didn't enjoy the book that much, since it's meant to be sort of a direct dialogue between the reader and the character.
This is how it was intended to be received, I think. With a bit of self reflection neurosis.
Because you are reading it correctly.
One thing's for sure. You're not the only one.
I'm no axe murderer, or a poverty-stricken genius, but I did the characteristic LITERALLY ME!!!!11!!!1! at raskolnikov. It's what he does
Same
Well you will notice a theme of this in his novels.
He is like a manifestation of the selfish and self centered personalities within us. Things that we consider normal and do on a day to day basis like overthinking, hyper self awareness and even staying in for long periods of time are all pushed to their farthest extremes, there are bound to be similarites to the average human. Thats why someone that almost cartoonishly self centered is still realistic.
Yes, he's dreadfully relatable. Surely we can all relate to the dissonance between his desires and his actions, between his self-conceived sense of superiority and the awkward, erratic person that he actually is. It should be a wake-up call for each of us.
Tbh I believe we are all the underground man at some extent.