Dostoevsky: Notes from Underground

Dear Salonistas (and of course our mighty and beloved leader, with your gracious and kind permission)

Many of you will know about my (tragically incomplete) Dostoevsky studies. In preparation for our group read of The Brother's Karamazov in November, I have made it my new mission in life to complete my reading of all Dostoevsky's works from 1862 (where I stalled previously) to 1881 (the date of BK).

You may follow my journey here.

On May 1st I will be starting with Notes from Underground, 1864, my favourite of all his works.

I seem to remember in the mists of time, in the catnip- addled darkness of my memory, in the fluff filled and fetid space under the sofa where the proctologist and I reside, that others expressed an interest in joining me for a read of this tale. If I am mistaken, if this is a false memory, a fond hallucination of my subconscious desires, then be kind and gentle with me.

Nonetheless I invite all interested salonistas to join me in a quickie. It's short and should take no longer than two weeks.

Fresh herring, sturgeon, and of course the ubiquitous and necessary vodka will be provided.

Any takers?

Hm. I half-heartedly read this one in college, and I now wish I'd spent more time with it. I don't have my copy with me, however. If I can find it cheap in the next couple days, I'll join in. Which translation are you using?

Been there once, why not again? I'll follow along.

Ocourse if there is wodka...

count me in, but allow some time to get a copy.

Just bought Joseph Frank's DOSTOYEVSKY: A Writer in His Time. 2010. Just about threw my back out carrying the damn thing home. You can count on my usual truisms and bromides, etc. etc.

Fabulous!

I am using two editions:

Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation, and David Magarshack's.

Por: that is the one volume redaction of Frank's 5 volume biography. It should be excellent, widely regarded as the bible of Dostoevsky studies. I will be very interested to hear what you make of it. I might treat myself to the 5 volume work, if I complete the challenge.

Totally in, once I, erm . . . finish Infinite Jest.

Mauww... how does that translate into Russian?

Maybe... I just purchased a free copy from amazon, not sure who the translator is. Also, it's in my modern library copy of The Best Short Stories of Dostoevsky. But I might want/need something mindless after IJ - which I haven't finished yet. I read Notes just a few years ago*, so I'll at least follow along.

*er, actually Dec 2002.

Been looking for an excuse and have never gotten around to it. See you in May! After all Oranges are not the only Fruit. And neither is at all a tome.

I'll join you if I can find my copy. I still don't have places for all my books, so not finding it is a real possibility.

Will try to get it from the library. I've only ever read the Brothers K.

Right as rain TCMurr. I have even read one of the previous volumes, if not more. The new volume is a heavy-weight indeed. 900 plus pages. Mercifully, the footnotes are un-DFW-like. Here's a little passage from the Preface. An important one, I think.

Dostoyevsky's innate propensity to dramatize his ideas in this way was noted in an extremely acute remark by one of his closest associates, the philosopher Nickolay Strakhov. "The most abstract thought," he wrote, "very often struck him with an uncommon force and would stir him up remarkably. He was, in any case, a person in the highest degree excitable and impressionable. A simple idea, sometimes very familiar and commonplace, would suddenly set him aflame and reveal itself to him in all its significance. He, so to speak, felt thought with unusual liveliness. Then he would state it in various forms, sometimes giving it a very sharp, graphic expression, although not explaining it logically or developing its content." It is this inborn tendency of D. to "feel thought" that gives his best work its special stamp, and why it is so important to locate his writings in relation to the evolution of ideas in his lifetime.

The same could be said about Aldous Huxley. He wrote about a different set of people but he was above all, especially in POINT COUNTER POINT (wherein was discussed the 'ideas' of D.H. Lawrence (Mark Rampion) et al., a novelist of ideas.

I have started Notes from the Underground and expect to read it all the way through. I don't know that I'll have much to say.

Robert

Ah come on R.

Notes From The Undergound
The Rapture

Wow, I'm really glad to see so many people joining us! Thank you everyone for your interest!

Dan, that version is the Magarshack translation.

Por, that is a brilliant quote, especially relevant to NFU, as we shall see.

Incidentally, for DFW fans, the book Por is quoting from is the book that DFW is writing about in his essay Joseph Frank's Dostoevsky in the collection Consider the Lobster. Here is a summary of what he says in that essay.

For those of you having difficulties getting a copy, here is an e-text, which also looks like the Magarshack translation to me.

Three days to go.

On the cover of Frank's book sits F.D. as the subject for Vasily Gregorevich Perov's painting. Perov was what might be called a 'realist' painter. The subject has balding dirty blonde-red hair. Tired eyes that move, it seems, upon the silence. Untrimmed yet not quite full, in the way Ruskin's beard was full. Reddish. Great gray overcoat seemingly borrowed from Gogol. Fancy pants, doubtless worn on one of his gambling sprees. But what one notices above all else is the subjects hands. Folded obediently on his knees, showing signs of, toil? Not a writer's hands unless the writer be of the camp of Eric Hoffer. A gravedigger's hands. Hands that the hyper observant Dickens might make much of. Point out some malady or disease. There was much disease in Dostoyevsky's life. D. looks like some 19th Century Hamlet of Denmark rapidly going to seed - had he managed to survive Claudius' treachery. If there were Angels and Devils in the great Russians nature, this picture by Perov showed him as one of the Devil's Disciples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Perov
http://www.art.com/products/p11726579-sa-i1352104/vasili-grigorevich-per-portrai...;

Oh excellent description, Porius! Don't stop there!, and thanks for the links! if you were here I would probably kiss you. That would be ok, right?

More vodka everyone!

I have been thinking about the quote Porius posted in 13, and its relevance to NFU.

NFU more than anything is a novel of ideas, but the ideas are not described in the usual way as ideas, but as images, as felt thoughts, as Strakhov says.

For those who are reading for the first time, the structure of NFU is taxing. Part 1 is some of the most difficult writing you are likely to read; very little happens, except for a long rancid rant. All the action is in part 2. As you read, you might want to think about why Dostoevsky structured the work in this way.

Here are some quotes to whet your appetites:

The sole and express purpose of every intelligent man is babble - that is, a deliberate pouring from empty to void.

Throughout my life the laws of nature have offended me more than anything else.

NFU (1864) was written in response to Chernyshevsky's novel What is to be done?(1863). That novel in turn was written in response to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons (1862). NFU makes very oblique references to those works constantly.

If there is something you don't understand in your reading of NFU, chances are it's because the text is interacting with those two previous texts.

Here are some links to my studies of both books. And of course, don't hesitate to ask if some thing is not clear.

What is to be done?

Fathers and Sons

D. broke with his great friend Berezhetsky and when he recalled that bitter feelings came to replace the friendship he shrugged his shoulders. We do not know if a rift appeared between the two friends. Here the lucubrations from the OGM may help to fill us in:
Once indeed, I did have a friend. But I was already a tyrant at heart; I wanted to exercise unbounded sway over him . . . . I required of him a disdainful and complete break with his surroundings . . . . But when he devoted himself to me entirely I began to hate him immediately and repulsed him - as though all I needed him for was to win a victory over him and nothing else.

This brings to mind Ambrose Bierce's definition for the word ALONE in his Devil's Dictionary: bad company.

At my age I don't turn down kisses of any sort.

Bad company indeed Porius.

That's is one of the key scenes in the book, foreshadowing his relationship with the prostitute.

Remind me, who was Berezhetsky?

http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com

Two days to go.

At my age I don't turn down kisses of any sort.

Love that quote POR, it goes in the book !

19:

Lime drop anyone? (I don't think I would make a good Russian)

Perceptive. Even Russians don't make good Russians it seems.

Berezhetsky was a school friend. The school D. hated like the plague. Though it gave him a very good education in the 'Humanities' etc. etc. Frank draws from memoirs and the like of some of D.'s schoolmates. I'm enjoying Frank so far. It has a great pace. I read Blotner's FAULKNER in college, it was an endless laundry list. Later I had the great man for a Faulkner class at UM Ann Arbor. He was a swell fellow actually, I enjoyed the Faulkner study immensely. I told him at some point that the F. biography might be more useful if it was shortened and tightened up a little bit. He simply smiled at me. I was a callow Lit. student, but one not without a point.
The school of course was the military/engineering job. D's brother failed one of the important examinations and was sent to another 'Dotheboys' like school. It turned out to be a bit of good fortune, we have the letters sent to the older brother.

#20: The sole and express purpose of every intelligent man is babble - that is, a deliberate pouring from empty to void.
Downer! That clinches it, I'm not inviting Dostoevsky's Underground Man to my next cocktail party.

Srsly though, I'm going to join in when I can. Purchased the Magarshack translation yesterday, Great Short Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky volume.

It took me a couple of nights to get through part one, then I read part two last night. I'm in the same volume as Medellia.

The Underground Man would not be surprised to find that the story is actually a fictionalized account of me, at least until I became a stoic.

Robert

In good times it is sometimes difficult for me to get into an appropriate state of existential angst in order to read something like Dostoevsky. So I headed out into a very busy area of Manhattan with my earplugs today, hoping to stoke those fumes of bitterness and emptiness. The sunshine and my tasty cupcake from Whole Foods did not help (not to mention the capering squirrels), but the teenagers sitting next to me did. If it is "positively immoral, indecent, and vulgar to live more than forty years," I vote that we live from ages 20 to 60, then. Get off my lawn.

I'm twenty-five pages in, and starting to find my stride. The Underground Man is starting to cohere a little more for me. At first, I was confused--he does seem to be a bit all over the place, yes? But I'm just starting to get how his personality & motivations tie together, I think...

#29 Mr.Durick: I am currently halfway through Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. Much more appealing than my attempt during my teenage years (is there a teenager who appreciates Stoicism?). I couldn't help thinking of what Aurelius' assessment of the Underground Man would be. (Of course, Aurelius tells us that we shouldn't waste our time judging others & worrying about their actions. Still...)

"The impossible is to them equivalent to a stone wall. What stone wall? Why, the laws of nature, of course, the conclusions of natural science, mathematics. When, for instance, it is proved to you that you are descended from a monkey, then it's no use pulling a long face about it: you just have to accept it."

Sigh, I did not find this at the library - hope I get it soon. I am 2 of 2 holds. Appreciate the discussion so far!

I lost mine. To those of you in the pdx, you can have it should you find it!

I have a jillion editions of the Meditations, Medellia; I should have memorized them by now. Our last minister even conducted a series of discussions on them that I participated in. I'll have to get back to them. I think I could spend a whole life in the study of stoicism, but that would keep me from spending my whole life on transcendentalism...

Robert

The Underground Man would not be surprised to find that the story is actually a fictionalized account of me

Yes, and me too! Anyone else feel the same? This book really speaks to me on so many levels. There are sentences which just jump out at me, and others which make me laugh out loud and others which make me squirm uncomfortably.

Thanks for reminding me about Berezhetsky, Porius. Keep those snippets coming. This biography sounds amazing.

He is kind of all over the place, Meddy, but there is method to his madness. For example, part one is about images and metaphors, and part two is about actions and events. As you read, look for connections between the images and the events.

I have completed the Pevear and Volokhonsky version and am now on the Magarshack. It's interesting comparing both. P&V have: "I am a wicked man" while Magarshack has "I am a spiteful man." Personally, I prefer spiteful, but is the difference important? What does the Russian say?

Can it be that I have been arranged simply so as to come to the conclusion that my entire arrangement is a hoax?

The Underground Man resonates deeply with me too. I prefer "I am a spiteful man" too.

I read NFU immediately after reading Crime and Punishment, and of course the obvious connection is linking Raskolnikov to the Underground Man. I found their worldviews very similar.

Could the Underground Man have been an earlier incarnation of Raskolnikov? - a character D. was working on and whose fullest expression came a few years later in C&P....or maybe I'm reaching?

Had my eyes on those Joseph Frank editions forever, but $35.00 a pop, I've restrained myself. So keep that Joseph Frank coming Por-Man, and tomcat, I hope you'll elaborate on how and where the book speaks to you on so many levels. I plan on doing the same beginning this weekend. We might want to start a "Personal Notes on Notes From Underground" thread, perhaps, to organize our personal ooommmppphhh, that's me, moments that arise on nearly every page.

I hope too tomcat you'll explain to us how NFU effectively separates Doestoy's first writings from his those of his classic, canonesque tomes. I remember reading that Notes marked a major transition in Doestoy's career, but I don't recall the specifics, it's been so long since I read it. Hey I'm not asking a lot am I? ;) I'll try and research some of these questions too this weekend.

Fabulous idea, doing Notes From Underground. I can say unequivocally and unabashedly, that I, EnriqueFreeque, am also, like MrDurick (Robert) and underground man.

And at only, depending on which trans. you've got, it's barely 100 pages, so this philosophical-novella-ish treatise can be dissected and studied under the scope like few other of Ds major works of lit.

So, let the dissecting of Doestoevsky commence! Huh? It already has? Oh, well, then, LET THE DISSECTING OF DOESTOEVSKY CONTINUE TO COMMENCE.

Sorry for the shouting. I'm just excited.

I'M EXCITED TOO, THAT YOU ARE EXCITED, SO LET'S ALL SHOUT!!!!! WOOOOHOOOOO!!

GREAT IDEA TO START -drat that stupid shift key - a personal response thread. I'm gonna do that now. I'll put some thoughts up about the position of NFU in Dodos' cannon over the weekend, and some other ideas I'm having too.

In Russian, he says: Я злой человек (Ya zloy chelovek). The word злой can be translated in quite a few ways, a sampling from the NTC New College Ru&En dictionary is: cruel, wicked (!), vicious, ill-natured, spiteful (!), malicious, cross, angry, bad-tempered, savage, fierce, evil, (of a sickness) painful, agonizing, (of food) hot (of language) biting

combinations:
злой человек - ill-natured/wicked person
злая улыбка - sarcastic/nasty smile
как вы сегодня злы! - how bitter/nasty you are today
злой умысел - malicious intent
злая шутка - mean trick
злая воля - evil intent
злой недуг - cruel sickness
злая судьба - cruel fate
злая горчица - hot mustard
злая ирония - savage irony

So that's quite a plethora to select from.
What makes it even more interesting is that the speaker can have one intent (he has just referred to his sickness), and the reader may be more inclined to attach one or more of the other intentions to it。

I read NFU a few years ago in a Dutch translation. It says: "Ik ben een slecht man", that is more in the way of "wicked or "evil".
(Hilarious wrapper text: Aantekeningen uit de ondergrondse, as if he's writing from the underground railway. The book itself has the correct HET ondergrondse).
I've been trying to go through the Russian text these days, I often get lost but just as often I can grasp some meaning.

Pim! I'm so glad you could join us. You are in danger of getting a kiss as well!!!

I prefer 'spiteful' coz 'wicked' has connotations of moral judgement, whereas 'spiteful' only has connotations of motivation, of emotion without judgement. One can do a spiteful act, or commit an act out of spite, which is then judged 'wicked' by others. It's this judgemental aspect of 'wicked' that sits uneasily on the text, for me.

One of the things NFU is NOT is judgemental.

Here's another one for you, if you would be so kind.

P&V have:
The sole and express purpose of every intelligent man is babble - that is, a deliberate pouring from empty to void.

Magarshack has:
The direct and sole puporse of every intelligent man is to talk, that is to say, waste his time deliberately

I'm especially interested in what the Russian says for the part in bold.

Quote of my 15 year old son : LT is the facebook of the geeks! : )

OMG!!! I am a geek?!?!

>38 tomcatMurr:: Но что же делать, если прямое и единственное назначение всякого умного человека есть болтовня, то есть умышленное пересыпанье из пустого в порожнее.

The verb больтать is not just talk, but chattering, etc.
The bold text corresponds to "deliberate pouring from empty to more empty". The following expression is noted:

перелипать из пустого в порожнее - do something useless.

So it's the old translators dilemma: literal translation or not.

I picked this up a few weeks ago just to read because I like Dostoyevsky, so I'm glad to see if here, too! I'm only 1/3 of the way through it, but I am in LOVE.

39> Off topic you wicked and spiteful and злой умысел and как вы сегодня злы! person!

I am currently underground. Do I get kisses too?

hmmm... wish I read Cyrillic.

Smooches? Who's smooching? I want one!

Am about to start chapter 5 and already I am vexed! He KNOWS me...

Welcome Zanknits and Urania! Kisses for both of you (don't be alarmed Zanknits, we have never met, but I am a friendly pussy with a rough tongue, others here will vouch for me lol)

Pim, that's what I thought but thanks for clearing it up anyway. I rather like the image of pouring from void to empty, and was worried lest it might be a P&V rather than a D. I think they made the right decision to stick to the surface words, and not translate it as an idiom as Magarshack has done.

Captain Mac, your son should read this book in two years when he is seventeen. then he will understand that the underground man was the first geek!

Right: to business.

>35 absurdeist:
tomcat, I hope you'll elaborate on how and where the book speaks to you on so many levels

Take any sentence from random really, it all resonates with me. How about this already quoted:

Throughout my life the laws of nature have offended me more than anything else.

I am 184 cms tall, with size 12 feet and very big hands; my weight fluctuates between 80 and 90 kilos, and I am left-handed but right footed. I am very clumsy, always banging into furniture, spilling things, bumping into people on the street, stubbing my toes, knocking the back of my hands on door frames as I pass through, misjudging distances and strength. I am absolutely hopeless at sports, and have no hand eye coordination at all -threading a needle is completely and utterly beyond me.

Apart from the problems of controlling my body, I seem to exist in a time/space warp, in which the normal laws of physics and causality do not apply. Swipe cards do not work for me, TVs flicker and radio signals disappear when I draw near, mobile phones don't work for me, earphones do not fit in my ears, and all I have to do to break a computer is look at it. I see the laws of nature behaving capriciously all around me: coffee flying up from a cup, things rolling up hill, I have watched with my own eyes a cup crawl across a perfectly level table. gravity is not my friend. And it has always been like this. Compounding these difficulties is the fact that I am a 99%er, to use Zeno's magnificent term, so I am more interested in what's happening in my head than in what is happening in the physical space around me.

I have many times cursed bitterly the laws of nature. And then to hear the underground man cursing them as well, is tremendously consoling.

oooph that is good therapy indeed. Ok, someone else's turn now, to post a quote that resonates with you and say why.

I'm serious about that, by the way.

Not just because we seem to be playing a Dostoevskyan version of spin-the-bottle, but also because it's important for the answer I want to give to Enrreeeeeeeeque's second question in >35 absurdeist:. (cliffhanger alert)

It will also help to give us a sense of where we all are in the book as we read.

So, post a quote, and explain why it resonates with you.

Pretty please.

(And then we'll have more sturgeon.)

#47: Ok, I'll bite. Actually, NFU hasn't really resonated with me personally so far; I'm sure that's why I'm having some difficulty wrapping my head around it. Great black humor, interesting character portrait, but no personal connection. (I had a similarly difficult experience with Crime & Punishment earlier this year, actually, and I tabled it not far into it, thinking that it was too difficult a novel for me to tackle at the time. But others told me that it's not all that difficult, and I should be able to get through C & P with no problems. So I'm starting to suspect that there's something that other people intuitively understand or identify with in Dostoevsky that I do not, which leaves me adrift and confused.)

At any rate, I encountered the first quote that resonated with me in chapter 2 of the second part, Apropos of the Wet Snow. Our Underground Man gets the uncommon urge to be social and calls on Anton Antonovich Setochkin. "He (Anton) sat on a leather sofa in front of his desk, with some grey-haired visitor, a civil servant from our department or, occasionally, from some other department . . . I had the patience to sit like a damn fool beside these people for hours, listening to them, neither daring to speak to them, nor knowing what to say. I got more and more bored, broke out into a sweat, and was in danger of getting an apoplectic stroke. But all this was good and useful to me. When I came home, I would put off for a time my desire to embrace all mankind."

It resonates with me because I'm a sociophobe. So many times I have been in that situation, sitting silently, awkwardly, beginning to sweat, my heart beginning to pound, a rising sense of panic, trying to muster up the courage to say something, but not knowing what, occasionally followed by a tearful meltdown in a corner. Then I go home and say, ok, that's my attempt at being social for a while. :)

Re: Dostoyevsky's character psychology

"Dostoevky's lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity -- all this is difficult to admire."
-Dostoyevsky, according to Vladimir Nabokov :D

Speaking of character psychology, I was really hoping that our dear 'Rique would swoop in with his DSM-IV and give us some diagnosis codes for Dostoevsky's Underground Man. Just putting that request out there.

Using TCM's quote if I may: I am clumsy, if not quite as dramatically clumsy, at moments in my existence. Things will always and ever be escaping from my grasp. I will just miss pleasurable meetings and always, always end up meeting just that voter I would wish to avoid. I also have very big hands, though they can be most useful and careful at times, but there are times when they are not, useful or careful.
At moments I too have trouble with nitwit gadgets. But being a comedian at heart I almost always get a chuckle or three out of the cartoon. I see the world around me mostly as a cartoon replete with the most, not always, silly cartoon characters. I am a funny element though, I have moments of dejection, moments of complete resignation, and moments of Adlerian highs. Though I can shake the dejection quickly (ie. if John McCain is not within earshot, etc.) because I always accept the burden of anothers' pain - and it never helps to pour gasoline on a fire.

I am going to have to wait for the parental units to finish watching the Sunday morning politicos before I can concentrate enough to post... But I will be back... and Murr where's the love? Seems so many others have been smooched, but not Moi? This kitty is crushed...

I've underlined practically every other sentence; might as well highlight the entire text so far. Btw, I'm reading from Sixteen Short Novels, since I couldn't find my microscopically slim ed. of NFU. No idea what trans. it is, because the editor didn't see fit to specify, even though he had no problem specifying who translated the Chekhov! Gotta run out, but will be back and elaborate on some particularly ah-ha passages.

Here's one I'll comment on from the end of chap. 1:

"No doubt you think, gentlemen, that I want to amuse you. You are mistaken in that, too. I am not at all such a merry person as you imagine, or as you may imagine; however, if irritated by all this babble (and I can feel that you are irritated) you decide to ask me just who I am -- then my answer is, I am a certain low-ranked civil servant." (emphasis mine).

DSM-IV?

First blush, I'd say he's "schizoid" (but not schizophrenic) - does he really want relationships with people? - I don't think he does. If he did, he'd be "avoidant" (i.e., "social-phobic"). Definitely anti-social (but not sociopathic). I'll have to look up the qualifying symptomatologies for these personality disorders and to see if he's got enough of the criteria to be "officially diagnosed", HA! Fun. Great idea, Medellia!

He's definitely depressed, I'd say, which presents as over-the-top anger, and he possesses a cynicism so extreme it's funny at times. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be grinning when I read some of his dark thoughts: "the enjoyment, of course, of despair," as an example. The underground man is missing some mental filters that block and mask most of these "truths" from the rest of us so that we can live w/out feeling so crushed by circumstances all the time. Okay, I've really gotta go...hard to leave!

Re-reading (scanned first go-round) 44-52, loving and admiring the very personal (and courageous, showing some vulnerability in being so personal in a potentially cantankerous venue full of drive-by'ers, looking to demean) posts.

Quickly,

It resonates with me because I'm a sociophobe

Dingdingdingdingding! Totally identify to that in real life, Medellia, as you know. Which, for me, ties into my quoting, "I am not at all such a merry person as you imagine" up above. Thank you for that.

And this is what I love about great literature, too, how it so often opens us and gives us permission to be real (for me, for a change) and in being real somehow connect intellects/lives/experiences, even if it is just cyberspace...DFW and Doestoy, seems to me, have a remarkably uncanny way of making it okay to share deeper stuff publicly, w/out fear of embarrassment or ridicule.

I have watched with my own eyes a cup crawl across a perfectly level table

I believe you. You've obviously got a rich connection to the metaphysical side of life. We could start a thread based solely on our metaphysical experiences. I think it would be fascinating reading.

I have moments of dejection, moments of complete resignation, and moments of Adlerian highs.

Amen, Por-man, me too. Weekly, if not daily.

There in its nasty, stinking, underground home our insulted, crushed and ridiculed mouse promptly becomes absorbed in cold, malignant and, above all, everlasting spite. For forty years together it will remember its injury down to the smallest, most ignominious details, and every time will add, of itself, details still more ignominious, spitefully teasing and tormenting itself with its own imagination.

Oy ve, after 36 years of clinical depression I could not have put it any better.

for tc:

Zounds! Readheaded tree slugs. If you put them on a stick over the campfire they taste just like peanutbutter.

ROFLMAO!!!! MMMMUUUUAAAAHHHH, Murr!

Prrrrrrrhhhhhhhhh... Prrrrrrrhhhhhhh... am most content, now and will go curl up with Tig and read.

tc loves peanutbutter!

Thanks to everyone for opening up and sharing (is this getting like one of the AA meetings from Infinite Jest, or what? LOL) It's not too late for anyone else who is reading to contribute their resonant quotes, but absolutely no pressure.

ok, so here is why all this group therapy is important (apart from the fact that it further binds us together as friends, which is very valuable) for understanding NFU.

I hope too tomcat you'll explain to us how NFU effectively separates Doestoy's first writings from his those of his classic, canonesque tomes.

Dostoevsky's great theme as writer and thinker is the nature of experiential subjectivity, or in other words, he seeks to describe the nature of human subjectivity as it is experienced by that subject.

Dostoevsky had ideological problems with the notion of rationalism and he attacked it all his life, for reasons too complex to develop here. His main objections to it were that 1) reason is atomistic: rationalists divide the human ego into parcels, convenient for studying and analysing, but ultimately reductive; 2) he saw how the proponents of rationalism discussed reason as if reason somehow existed outside the ego. Dostoevsky argued that reason is found nowhere else in the universe except in humanity, so to discuss it and analyse it as something separate from humanity, as something abstract, was absurd; 3) the danger of rationalism is that it reduces the human being to an object, and so in the face of this he asserted subjectivity (It's for this reason that he was so admired by the existentialists, especially Sartre and Camus); 4) Dostoevsky was firmly convinced that reason is only one aspect or mode of the ego, and other forces such as irrationality played a huge part, a part usually ignored or placed to one side by rationalists.

These themes really come together for the first time in the most sustained and thought-through way in NFU. They are present in previous characters, but not so developed or prominent. The catalyst for this was Chernyshevsky's novel What is to be done? (NFU started life as a review of Chernyshevsky’s novel) Thereafter Dostoevsky had found his main subject, which he returns to again and again throughout his fiction. The stupendous interiority of all his main characters – including Raskolnikov, as you noted, Enrique- ultimately comes from the underground man.

It's for this reason that he begins the novel with the long rant from the underground man, and puts all the action in the second half (there is no action at all in the first half, right?): he wants to foreground consciousness, put it first, to recreate the way our own consciousness is constantly foregrounding itself as part of our experienced subjectivity, and events are secondary. I think the reason the underground man's utterances resonate so much with us is that he is so successful in capturing consciousness in all its scope, the rational and the irrational. He just 'gets' the way we are all locked inside our own minds. In ill people -I agree that the underground man is clinically depressed- of course, consciousness becomes a terrible, terrible burden.

Part 1 contains specific attacks against certain philosophical ideas associated with rationalism. To adumbrate them all here would be ridiculous (probably another phd thesis in there); however, as you read the novel, I’m sure you will notice again and again how ‘irrationality’ erupts to the surface of the text. At the end, ‘Dostoevsky’ calls the underground man a ‘paradoxicalist’, and this is not just a joke. Every emotion, every motivation experienced by the underground man is immediately followed by its opposite. “He could not help himself.” He is always knowingly acting in own worst interests.

I will stop there. I see everyone is gently snoring. Apologies if I have done nothing but state the blindingly obvious.

>49 391:

That is a great quote from Nabokov, isn't it, and so characteristic: he offers a brilliantly perceptive critical insight, and then mars it with a cranky opinion.

all this is difficult to admire

On the contrary. I admire it intensely, as I think for most sensitive people, life itself is a 'tragic misadventure of human dignity'. Few people are blessed with Nabokov's positivism.

oh, and I found this interesting quote last night, from John Jones, in the intro to Crime&Punishment:

the greatness of Tolstoy is always with us all the time, whereas Dostoevsky's comes back like a revelation, even a surprise, each time we pick one of his books up.

Nabokov was a Tolstoyan.

#59 - Murr, brilliant post. No one is snoring.

I was just stopping by to say I think I'm in, or at least I started Notes today.

(PS - I'm glad tc survived that blinding lipstick and seems to be doing OK.)

Was reacting, if that's the word, to Chernyshevsky's material determinism and denial of free will. Didn't much care for Crystal Palace ideal and all of that. Because he came of age when he did.

Because the Crystal Palace left, or had no room for "Suffering."
"After all," says the UGM, "I do not really insist on suffering or on any prosperity either, I insist . . . on my caprice, and that it be guaranteed to me when it's necessary."
In the Crystal Palace it, suffering, is even unthinkable: suffering is doubt, negation, and what kind of C.P. would it be wherein doubt could be harbored? To doubt means that man is not yet transformed into a rational-ethical machine that can behave only in conformity with reason. This is why the UGM declares that "suffering is the sole origin of consciousness" suffering and consciousness are inseparable because the latter is not only a psychological but primarily a moral attribute of the human personality.

Notes from a ground under construction in the City. These notes are Franks of course. Though not beyond my ability to absorb and call my own.

My sides ache a bit, but really am doing fine now. ;-) Thanks for caring, dc!

I am not snoring... I use a cpap. I may look like I'm asleep, but I have been paying attention... Okay, gotta go get my dictionary.

#53 'Rique: I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be grinning when I read some of his dark thoughts: "the enjoyment, of course, of despair,"
When I encountered this passage, it made me want to run for Cold Comfort Farm. I'm due a reread--maybe I'll need it after NFU. :)

I laughed so hard as our Underground Man nursed his grudge against the army officer from the pub for two years--two years!--followed by his grand plan for "revenge"--that I had to stop sipping my tea, for fear of water-damaging my lovely paperback.

edit: argh touchstones argh

Having only read the first dozen pages so far, I can already clearly see the UGM is a 99%er.

It strikes me as well that this quote from Merleau Ponty seems apposite to the UGM's worldview:

"The existence of other people is a difficulty and an outrage for objective thought."

Having found another copy of the book within a great short works of F.D. dealio, I am back on track. If by on track you mean just a few pages in.

Thinking about the books Tomcat mentions are NFU's precursors, I am thinking Medellia is on the right track. This isn't the book I thought it was when I was a kid, is it?

This doesn't really belong here, but the lips above just seemed to smack of it, so here goes, Lips.

If the lips fit . . .

Slick, no, probably not, but what kind of book did you think it was when you were a kid?

Some recent thoughts on our friend the Underground Man here:

http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2010/05/fragment-5052010.html

Honestly, I thought the Underground Man would be cool.

#70 I had the same thought when I stumbled across this the first time - like what I expect from "underground" music scenes.

#69 Murr, I have my own contradictory (and convoluted) response to your Lectern excerpts. Both here and in C&P I'm amazed in how much tension Dostoevsky can create, and he seems to do it in such a minor events. Part of it is the deeper underlying philosophical meanings (and undermining of them), part of it is immediate emotional turmoil in our own relationship with the narrator - I mean how Dostoevsky lets his characters loose and how they become so uncontrolled we're left just hanging on, cringing; and how we find ourselves actually tightening our grip. But, really, D's point must be the combination of these - if we can get so riled up about such an idealistic and ridiculous thought-process, then there must be something there that isn't ridiculous. That the idealistic view has somehow touched something important to us. He's powerfully smashing at the what should be a comfort zone in our rational conscious/irrational subconscious divide. The question I'm asking is, since D has gotten us to this point, how much this really something to think about and how much is D simply manipulating us?

As for a confessional - I find myself nodding too much with this guy. This is strange because when I first read this, at the ripe young pre-parental age of 29, I just took him as a crazy man channeling his anger at the world into a nonsensical rant. That he now he makes perfect sense to me is kind of scary.

#70/71 re "underground": Lolol. Be cool, man, be cool.

LOL, you mean like a kind of Russian fat freddy?

Dan, I agree with everything you say (and love the way you put it), especially this:

He's powerfully smashing at the what should be a comfort zone in our rational conscious/irrational subconscious divide. which is absolutely spot on imo.

Your question: I think it's both. I think it is something really to think about, and a manipulation. First, the underground man is making a concerted attack on rationalism, showing its weaknesses etc: he definitely wants us to think about that.

Secondly, Dostoevsky chooses an artistic form - internal fictional monologue- to manipulate us to greater awareness of our own consciousness so that we can see for ourselves that rationalism is only one part of the make up of our consciousness. It's amazing that so many of us feel touched by the underground man's thoughts, usually, the irrational ones.

'By these pictures you will beguile', says the underground man to himself.

In chapter 6 of part 1 the underground man mentions this painting:

'The Last Supper' by Nicholas Ge:



The underground man regards this painting as trash.

Readers of The Master and Margarita may remember Ge as the artist who painted What is Truth?

Ge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_the_Great_Interrogating_the_Tsarevich_Al...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ge_Christ_Head.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nikolaj_Alexandrowitsch_Jaroschenko_009.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ge_golgofa.jpg

Did F.D. see all these voters as willing-all-too-willing dupes?
His skin was the thinest of all the thin skinned as far as the eye could see.
Colin Wilson sees him as the first true 'Outsider.'
John Cowper Powys was a great reader of F.D.

Dostoyevsky was haunted by this passage from Revelation:
And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea . . . lifted up his hand and sware . . . that there should be time no longer, but the mystery of God should be finished . . .

Who is this?:

I've tried my strength everywhere. You advised me to do that so as to learn to 'know myself'. When I've tried it for my own sake and for the sake of self-display, it seemed infinite, as it has been before in my life. Before your eyes I put up with a blow in the face from your brother; I acknowledged my marriage in public. BUT WHAT TO APPLY MY STRENGTH TO - THAT'S WHAT I'VE NEVER SEEN AND DON'T SEE NOW. My desires are never strong enough. They cannot guide me. You can cross the river on a tree-trunk, but not on a chip . . .

Finished this am, I'm wowed and confused. I'd forgotten how much the second part reads like a thriller - that's not intended as a criticism, I mean it kept me at the edge of my seat.

#74 - Murr, thanks!

Dostoevsky chooses an artistic form - internal fictional monologue- to manipulate us to greater awareness of our own consciousness so that we can see for ourselves that rationalism is only one part of the make up of our consciousness.

There is comment near the end that somewhat contradicts me, but my initial feeling is that the second part undermines the importance-of-our-irrational-psyche arguments as our underground man acts in way all of would agree is not sane - hence we can separate ourselves from his irrationality. I'll look up that comment when I get a chance.

INTERMISSION
Constance Garnett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Garnett
Translator of F.D. and other great Russians had a son named David "Bunny" (Edmund Wilson's nickname was "Bunny") Garnett who was married to Angelica Bell, daughter of Vanessa Bell (Virginia Woolf's painter sister) and Clive Bell/Duncan Grant. It seems that Grant (worm that he was) was the real father.
"Bunny" was a biologist/novelist. Writing ASPECTS OF LOVE; BEANY EYE; THE SAILOR'S RETURN; A MAN IN THE ZOO; GO SHE MUST; NO LOVE; THE GRASSHOPPER'S COME; and POCAHONTAS. He wrote a book about flying called A RABBIT IN THE AIR. Very funny Bunny.
At the Royal College of Science he studied botany for 5 years and discovered a new species of mushroom. But he abandoned science and started a bookshop. But after he had some success with LADY INTO FOX he gave up bookselling for writing. For a time he was part owner of the Nonesuch Press and for another time editor of The New Statesman.
He lived the greater part of his life in the country enjoying the slaughtering of birds and particularly fishing.
The first volume of his Autobiography, THE GOLDEN ECHO, appeared in 1953, and the second, THE FLOWERS OF THE FOREST, in 1955.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Garnett
http://www.nndb.com/people/641/000104329/

His daughter Amaryllis was found drowned in the Thames, no note was found. 1943 - 1973
http://www.stanford.edu/group/auden/cgi-bin/auden/individual.php?pid=I15422&...

I have several Constance Garnett translations of FD. I had a professor in school once cast a sidelong glance at my copy of Garnett's translation of Crime and Punishment, suggesting it might be a problem for the class I was taking. I wasn't about to pay $20 for the ratty, used, paperback version she was selling through the school bookstore. I thought it worked just fine. After all, none of us were reading it in Russian.

Was she just a snob, Gene, or is there something substantive in her dislike for Garnett? Almost all of my Dostoevsky books are her translations.

edited for pesky punctuation.

I really think she was sincere, but she never told me what her issue was. One thing about Garnett is her English diction sounds about ten years removed from Dickens, more formal than our modern day diction and she might have been afraid I would be put off by it. I have some P&V editions of the same works and the only difference I can tell is in the diction. Whether there are real substantive issues with Garnett's stuff or not, I can't tell you. I will say, I like the way she translates. But then not speaking Rooskie, I have no way of judging one from the other. She just sounds cooler, less informal to my ear. I like that. It's why I really, really, really like Dickens. I just think something of the intention is lost in the new, less formal translations. They impart a more modern feel to something that was written in a more formal world.

Not having read any other translations, I would not be able to comment on those. But, I agree with the formality. If I am reading a 19th century work, I would rather read it as it was written, authentic, as it were. No? I think that is what draws me to these authors. A modern translation would put me off more than a true depiction of that era's speech patterns.

Last part of INTERMISSION: here's a piece about the woman who married "Bunny." The impressive "Bunny" was twice her age when he popped the question.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/16/bloomsbury-vanessa-bell-virgi...

What a story, Porius. Thanks for that. What a life! Can you imagine? hmmm...

No kidding. This isn't a pattern that comes up too often, I imagine.

Her parents were appalled, believing that at 48 Bunny was far too old. Duncan, secretly her real father, even wrote him a letter. But they failed to supply her with the vital information that would have prevented Angelica from marrying him: that Bunny had been Duncan's lover!

At least the UGM offered the strumpetly woman some lucre, filthy though it was.

NFU fan here. It's good to see some CG love, without her I think non-speaking Russians would probably have missed out on the Russians for a spell. Isabel Hapgood was the only other translator of Russian literature at the time (that I can think of) and I don't believe she did any of old D's work. Mostly Turgenev, or as she preferred, Turgenieff. Incidentally, I don't believe there's any complete translation of his work other than Hapgood's.

I read (the underappreciated) House of the Dead last summer. I wouldn't hesitate recommending it to anyone one of you, if of course, you haven't read it already. Dover currently sells a thrift edition for a couple kopecks.

>9 dchaikin:
Murr, I've been very tempted to piece together the 5 volume Frank bio myself. I'm a sucker for large, academic treatments of great authors. Of course hardcover versions would be nice, but...

Broadbent: . . . I find the world quite good enough for me - rather a jolly place, in fact.
Keegan (looking at him with quiet wonder) : You are satisfied?
Broadbent : As a reasonable man , yes. I see no evils in the world - except of course, natural evils - that cannot be remedied by freedom, self-government and English institutions. I think so, not because I am an Englishman, but as a matter of common sense.
Keegan: You feel at home in the world then?
Broadbent: Of course. Don't you?
Keegan: (from the very depths of his nature) : No.

Bernard Shaw: JOHN BULL'S OTHER ISLAND, Act 4

>76 Porius: it sounds familiar, but It's just not coming to me. any more clues?

I agree about the importance of CG. Imagine how different English Modernism would have been if the Bloomsbury group had not read Dostoevsky, whom they knew only through CG translations?

Incidentally, CG's autobiography has been reissued by Faber Finds:

http://www.faber.co.uk/work/constance-garnett/9780571245604/

>87 DanMat: Welcome Dan Mat! I see from your profile page that you are new to LT, so Big Welcome! I like the picture of the Rimbaud grafiti on your profile gallery! House of the Dead is fantastic, I agree. (here is my review of it...

http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2009/02/impression-made-by-reality-is-always.html

As far as I am aware, All of Turgeneve is now in English, but not all by the same translator.

ooops. I see Faber Find is also issuing some previously-hard-to-get-hold-of Turgenev titles, such as Smoke and Virgin Soil.

Mmmm. Best keep my credit card away from that website, I think.

Shaw gave him a gift of a certain kind of wheels.

oh Porius, you Devil!

Why Devil? Though I am reading Ouspensky's TALK WITH A DEVIL.

Demon, then?

John Bull's Other Island

Demonstrate.

Demon-straight.

That was quick.

I get it now, Porius... ;-)

Well maybe you can clue me in.

I am lost. I confess. Lost. Utterly

But all is not lost!

Here is my review of NFU

http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2010/05/notes-from-underground-dostoevsky.html

>103 tomcatMurr:: tomcatMurr,

Just finished reading your comprehensive review of NFU. Very nice!
Can I ask the erudite cat a couple of questions for my education? :)

1. How is the Underground different from the Unconscious?

2. You mentioned that NFU might be seen "as the last outpouring of European Romanticism". How would you characterize Romanticism? Is it against scientific rationalism? Is it mainly driven by passion and desire?

Victor Hugo, whose book Les Miserables I'm currently reading, was called a proponent of Romanticism, and yet he seemed to value science, as well as art and literature, as the "Light" of mankind.

Way behind but the book took off - in a good way - at I:vii.

Vis à vis David Garnett, Mina Curtiss paints an amusing picture of him (minus the lurid details) in her book Other People's Letters: In Search of Proust. His novella Lady into Fox is a gem. As for his mother's translations, I enjoy them. In some ways, I think that the closer a translator is to the time period of the author whom she is translating, the more one gets of the original flavour of the book.

P.S. Mina Curtiss must have been a character in her own right. Check out my review of her book.

It was from Dickens the reformer that the Russian novelists derived their inspiration. Marcel Schwob at one time planned a critical study of CHARLES DICKENS ET LE ROMAN RUSSE. What is the fundamental idea in the Russian novel? Schwob asked himself: that the humble have a lesson to teach the ruling classes. That is the novelty, and it is common to Dickens, and Dostoyevsky, and Tolstoy; and it was Dickens who first proclaimed it, who first proclaimed that 'the heart has its reasons'. Together with the central idea, a quantity of characters and characteristics passed from Dickens into the Russian novel; e.g. in THE IDIOT, Ivolgin, the father of Gania, recalls Micawber with one or two of the characteristics of William Dorritt, the father of the Marshalsea in LITTLE DORRITT; Lebedeff, in the same novel, is drawn from Uriah Heep. Heep would be right at home in a Russian novel, as would Mr. Dick in DAVID COPPERFIELD.
For the deepening of the evil qualities of Steerforth's character in Stavrogin, see G. Katkov, STEERFORTH AND STAVROGIN.

from THE HERO IN ECLIPSE in Victorian Fiction, Mario Praz.

Mister Murr and Co., it's been a hellatious week on the Freeque front, sorry for dropping out of sight so suddenly here. Hopefully by next week I can bounce back in.

Gotta say, though, I'm enjoying immensely the mix of banter, allusions, translation issues, commentary, etc. It's bringing back fond memories of those Ulysses' days. Keep up the good work. You're kicking ass too, Por-Man!

Nice review Urania numero uno. And of course yours too, tomcat. Just read 'em both, and thumbed 'em both.

Btw, don't have time at the moment, but I saw that Martin wrote a nice opinionated piece on an early Persian title whose name escapes me. Won't somebody please pimp him, since he's embarrassed or uncomfortable doing it himself?

And where the hell is SandyDog numero uno to welcome piemouth? Piemouth is a technical writer, and a damn good one I'll bet. Somebody best welcome her asap; otherwise, I'll have no choice but to do so myself.

I love the Underground Man. He may not be very lovable, but I love him. Si.

If anyone's still interested, this is the quote I was referring to in post #77 (delayed because I got a bit sick, now fully recovered), and thought maybe gave some value to the Underground Man's actions in part 2 - although re-reading it now I'm not sure he wasn't simply referring to his underground life ??

"As for what concerns me in particular I have only in my life carried to an extreme what you have not dared to carry halfway, and what's more, you have taken your cowardice for good sense, and found comfort in deceiving yourselves. So that perhaps, after all, there is more life in me than in you."

Murr, thanks so for your review.

you're welcome Dan. Glad it made sense. what strikes me most in the quote you gave is that the underground man seems to be talking to the heroes of chernyshevsky's book. "There's more life in me than you." is right, I think.

>107 Porius: Por, the connection between Dickens and Dostoevsky is fascinating, especially as I love to idolatory both writers.

Dostoevsky adored Dickens and only read three books in prison: one was the Bible and the others were Pickwick and David Copperfield.

The "Inimitable"
http://www.orwell.ru/people/dickens/img/dickens.jpg
F.D.
http://visualrian.com/storage/PreviewWM/0895/39/089539.jpg
C.D. #2
http://cd7.e2bn.net/e2bn/leas/c99/schools/cd7/website/images/CharlesDickens.jpg
F.D. #2
http://danliterature.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/fyodor-dostoevsky.jpg

>104 booksontrial: Booksontrial:

Thank you! let me try to explain...

1. I think the underground is a good symbol for the unconscious, but I don't think Dostoevsky intended it that way. The existence of the unconscious was first described by Fraud sorry Freud and William James among others in the last decade of the 19th century. NFU dates from 1864, so Dostoevsky was a good thirty years ahead of them. As I said in my review, the term 'underground' came originally from Chernyshevsky, and Dostoevsky borrowed it. I think Dostoevsky was a supreme psychologist, though, and in many ways his description of the irrational prefigures Freud's description of the unconscious. Dreams, which are absent in NFU, play a hugely significant role in other Dostoevsky works.

2. I went way out on a limb with that sentence, I guess. It occurred to me that during the 1820s and 1830s European culture was struggling between the old values of the Enlightenment: rationalism etc, and the new creed of Romanticism: Irrationality, heightened psychological states, the supernatural etc. this tension can be found most clearly in The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr. It seems to me that seen in the wider context of European culture, (rather than in the more specifically Russian context of the struggle between the slavophiles and the Westernisers) Dostoevsky's psychological portraits are essentially Romantic, anti Enlightenment. Russian culture was always a generation or two behind European culture, so the dates fit.

Others might disagree with me. I would be interested in talking more about it.

Por, does Frank have anything to say on the meeting between Dickens and Dostoevsky in London in 1862? I always thought they never met, but I found a mention of a meeting between them somewhere, but haven't been able to confirm it.

Nothing about a meeting in the flesh. Though on one of the last days of his life he spent the evening talking warmly about Pickwick and co. Especially one of my own favorites Mr. Jingles. He loved Dickens for his X-tian compassion. Frank is not so warm and cuddly about the "Sparkler".
Great job on the UNDERGROUND (Under the Floorboards) man. All this has me fired up to turn a few pages. I re-read Colin Wilson's first 2 books. He is must reading on the subject of the Underground Man, The Outsider. The Rebel, and all the rest of it.

thank you! I must try to get hold of Colin Wilson.

>113 tomcatMurr:: tomcatMurr,

Thank you for the thoughtful explanations. They are very informative. Two more questions for my education:

1. Why do you think that the underground man have more life in him than the rational man?

2. "Fraud sorry Freud" lol, an intentional Freudian slip to show contempt for Freud, but what on what basis?

1. Oh don't mean that, I mean that Dostoevsky's character has more 'life' than the characters of Chernyshevsky's novel.

2. Let's just say I'm post Freud.

>118 tomcatMurr:: tomcatMurr,

1. Perhaps I was reading something out of your review that wasn't actually there, but there seemed to me a preference for the underground man over the rational man. After all, there must a reason that NFU is your favorite of all his books? Or is it too rational to give a reason? :)

2. oh come, "Fraud sorry Freud" is not the same as "post Freud". There is residual contempt in the former that's not in the latter.

1. Well, it's a review of NFU, and I do think it's a better book than Chernyshevsky's, so it's natural that you would think i prefer the irrational man to the rational one. but I think this is a false dichotomy. Dostoevsky is saying, and I agree with him, that there is more to the human being than rationality. It's not a question of choosing one over the other.

2.There is residual contempt in the former that's not in the latter. Is it illegal? Am I on trial?

>120 tomcatMurr:: tomcatMurr,

You are not on trial, but called upon as an expert witness. :) My apologies if my remark seemed like interrogations. It was a sincere attempt to understand your position better.

1. I realize "preference" is not the right word, "inclination", "empathy" even "identification" would be more appropriate. In your review, you showed an empathic understanding of the underground man, which fascinated me and prompted me to dig a little deeper.

2. In the same spirit of understanding, I'm curious to know where the contempt for Freud came from. Curiosity doesn't really kill a cat, does it?

Murr? Last week I received a copy of NFU translated by Mirra Ginsburg. I think I like my copy of Garnett's better. As in the discussion above, I think Ginsburg's is too modern and reads really funky. Almost like gibberish. Have you read Ginsburg's NFU? What are your thoughts?

I have finally gotten to part II today and love Mrs. Garnett's translation. (We have been having health issues in our house for 2 weeks solid and have not been able to really delve into NFU as I wanted) It flows better and takes me there.

tc I hope all your health issues recover quickly.

I am not familiar with the Ginsburg translation. Generally speaking, I think part 2 is easier and more accessible than part 1.

Thanks, Murr... she is much better today. Thank gawd!!!

I agree about part II; am going to enjoy it immensely.

>125 absurdeist:: EnriqueFreeque,

If I were a psychoanalyst, I would say that you are a passionate guy who doesn't hesitate to defend his friend and who feels enraged by all the patronizing, self-important, arrogant, hypocritical people.

But, I'm just an ignoramus who is trying to learn and your rudeness is completely unjustified.

If you can back up the claim that Freud is a fraud, do it; if not, have the courtesy to stop calling names.

Steady on, steady on, Booksontrial, no one is calling anyone any names, are they? Unless you think: 'psychoanalyst' and 'Freudian' are name calling? LOL

I'm not particularly interested in discussing my attitude to Freud on this thread, except to say that I think that Freud's descriptions of the human mind only make up in far fetched imaginativeness and originality what they lack in subtlety, usefulness and accuracy.

Most of the great novelists and artists - Dostoevsky pre-eminently among them, and of course Shakespeare more than anybody- show a far greater understanding of human psychology than Freud does. And 'philosophy' as a field is a far more reliable -and interesting- way of understanding the human mind than 'psychology' as a field is. But that's just my opinion. Freudians will of course vehemently disagree, but then, they would wouldn't they, to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies.

And that's all I'm prepared to say about the matter at the moment here. Will that suffice?

More herring anyone?

For the record, a doctor at work who lectures on such things says Freud only studied the 'abnormal', not the 'normal', and thus had a skewed idea of psychology.

Other than that, I know nothing at all. :)

I think Freud is right : you are all perverts !

Tomcat, could you throw a herring this way ? I' ll try to catch it without flippers

There are too many questions about how Freud conducted his investigations and whether or not he invented mental conditions because he was afraid of the conclusions his studies led him to. A "scientist" who is afraid of his results is no scientist at all. If this is true, he deserves no respect and his entire field of study is suspect.

Not to get off the topic of Freud, but I have some thoughts on NFU.

First, a question: What the heck does "translunary" mean? (I have the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation.)

Second, WHY did I major in French instead of Russian? I could have read this, instead of La Nausée... Why did Sartre even bother? It had already been done...

Third, I have been reading this first and putting off the reviews until I am done, so I apologize if I am asking for info that you've already elaborated on at length, but I would be grateful for a bit of background about Dostoevsky's attitude about Gogol. He certainly references Gogol's short stories a lot, and I see some similarities between this character and the petty bureaucrats that make up Gogol's worlds. (I have only read a few short stories, but they are very memorable.) Did he see Gogol as being sort of an ally as opposed to the utopians who he is mocking?

#132 Anna - I was wondering whether the bit on the overcoat and the fur collar was in anyway a Gogol reference.

132: Yes and Metamorphosis from human to an insect was mentioned. And the monologue reminds me of The Fall.

But reason is only reason, and it can only satisfy the reasoning ability of man, whereas volition is a manifestation of the whole of life, I mean of the whole of human life, including reason with all its concommitant head-scratchings.NFU I.VIII.

Freud and Dostoevsky's concerns about "perversity" couldn't be more different, could they?

I am still early on, but I hear echoes of NFU in Infinite Jest. Am I hearing things that aren't there?

Dostoevsky's Underground Man on a bumper sticker: Celebrate perversity!

>133 dchaikin: Dan:

"He calls a sleigh as daylight's dimming;
The cry resounds: "Make way! Let's go!"
His collar with its beaver trimming
Is silver bright with frosted snow...

Eugene Onegin 5.16.1-4
Eugene goes to the theatre....

More for you on 132, Anna, tomorrow. Hold fast to the bottle.

Slick, you are dead right about the connection between IJ. I kept thinking about the underground man all the time was reading DFW.

Anna, can you print up a bunch for the salon?
lol

I find an echo of NFU first lines in Eliot's Hollow man.

Dosto : I am a sick man... I am a wicked man

the answer of the audience in Eliot

" We are the hollow men, we are the stuffed men"

Eliot had read Dostoievski's major works and he was well acquianted with NFU. The overly conciousness of the narrator is his sickness.
The others, "the unconcious", the crowd of unthinking hollow men are the others.

138: Oh yes, I can see a parallel!

Misunderstood intellectuals uniting across the ages... :)

At the same time that I am reading NFU, I am also reading a survey of Victorian literature from Dickens to Hardy. One of the essays was in regard to the reading public, and I found this line:

"The liberal Victorians had a now incredible vision: that men could reach perfection and that a perfectly functioning society could be created."

I know this is going to sound obvious, but it seems to me Dostoyevsky is telling those who believe this, not so fast, history tells us this is not going to happen. I think all the stuff about 2 + 2 = 4 is an attack on the idea that man is/can be completely rational, acting only in his best interests.

We have no experience with pure rationality, everything in history points to the fact that rationality is more of a surface phenomenon than a deep influence on the motion of the sea of mankind. Rationality bobs like a cork on a great sea of irrational behaviors driven purely by our will. A man who does not dive into this deeper sea is not a man at all. Thus, the Underground Man, in his forty years has not lived. He has remained on the surface of life, bobbing along with the rest of us. How delicious the Underground Man would think it to walk up to The Stranger on the beach and put a slug through him for no reason at all, other than to satisfy his irrational desire, knowing that it could not end well for him. (Sartre isn't the only one who re-plowed this ground, Anna. What does the Bible say, "There is nothing new under the sun?" Is this the foundational document of Existentialism? I think Dostoyevsky has another philosophic approach in mind, though, there is something beyond the wine dark sea).

A perfectly predictable world would, by necessity, be a world without humans. This is the lesson of the Garden of Eden. We exchanged the unselfconscious life, a life in which every algorithm is perfect, where two plus two equals four is the metaphor for all things, the dog's life (or cat's, since some of us here swing that way), for a life in which our imperfect rationality taunts us, while our deeper irrationality frightens us. We are imperfectly rational, and imperfectly irrational, in short an imperfect being. Yet we desire a life in which perfection is just over the horizon, leading to a life of frustration with our inability to be fully rational, a life which requires us, at times, to be fully, ragingly, irrational, a life that demands us to be human. A life unequally yoked to the weakness of our rationality on the one hand and the irrational, on the other, tugging us out to sea. We live in a world in which the more accurate metaphor is Pi, the symbol of imperfection, the irrational.

Humans are messy. There are no two ways about it. We do do things in spite of ourselves. Who hasn't thrown an object at a wall in outrage, only to find themself in calmer times with a bit of wire screen and sheet rock mud fixing the hole. We do these things and the fact that doing such a thing is irrational means nothing, in fact it's the pure irrationality of the act that appeals to us so. We are creatures made to rebel against our rational interests.

The Underground Man is rebelling against the idea that man can perfect himself through knowledge (or anything else, for that matter). This is the same mind-set Dickens is opposed to in the Gradgrind School - perfection can be achieved through our own free will. But, as Dostoyevsky says, to perfect man is to destroy him. The greatest irony of all.

Now, on to "On the Occasion of Wet Snow". Let's see how this plays out.

Beautiful, geneg. I look forward to your comments; I think you need to collect them in a book. Especially the rant from earlier today... What thread was it again? Anyhow, it was a joy to read...

I am at the same place in the book, as well as being on the same page mentally - just started "On the Occasion of Wet Snow" on the bus this a.m.

ETA: Rant is here:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/79388#1956607
Enjoy...

Emperor, you used 'interface' as a verb.

Robert

While I think you were a bit rough on booksontrial, I see why anyone, but especially the Fyodor-fanatical, might resent Freud. Freud basically made up a bunch of insulting theories in a speculative and wrong-headed attempt to psychoanlayze Fyodor based upon his writings and other historical evidence. Freud concluded that Fyodor's seizures were hysterical and had something to do with the death of his father and parricidal impulses or some such garbage. Which (talk about seizures) brings us 'round to IJ and Tony! Everything comes back to IJ.

>132 anna_in_pdx:
Dostoevsky's attitude to Gogol:

Dostoevsky famously said, "We all come out from Gogol's overcoat", referring to Gogol's story: The Overcoat (have you read that one Anna?)

Gogol, in his Petersburg tales (1835), introduced a number of important new things into Russian literature:

1) He focussed on the little man: the lowly government clerk, the insignificant nobody, those near the bottom of the social ladder

2) Social realism: he focused on the city and its denizens (Gogol is very close to the young Dickens) and social relations, describing them realistically

3) Magic. Not so evident in his Petersburg Tales (except the Nose), but very evident in his Ukranian Tales, the magic of the old Russian fairy tales, witches, monsters and Babi Yar.

Dostoevsky was hugely influenced by Gogol, taking especially 'the city' and 'the little man' motifs and developing them. (Magic is not so evident in Dostoevsky, but there are still traces of it, especially in Crime and Punishment). In fact, the whole school of social realism in Russian lit takes its impulse from Gogol. Gogol occupies a place in Russian lit similar to that of Pushkin's: Pushkin is the god of poetry, Gogol the god of prose.

Did he see Gogol as being sort of an ally as opposed to the utopians who he is mocking?

Gogol died in 1852, 12 years before NFU. Politically he was outside the main debates, wrapped up in his own strange world. Shortly before his death he published: Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends, a collection of essays and letters. This book was highly reactionary, conservative and right wing, and stunned all admirers of Gogol, Dostoevsky as much as anyone. Dostoevsky was appalled at some of the things Gogol was advocating.

In 1864 (the date of NFU) Dostoevsky was trying to steer a middle path between Slavophile conservatives (among whom one can place Gogol) and Westernising radicals. While Dostoevsky would have acknowledged his debt to Gogol in terms of literature, he would have hesitated to have been allied with Gogol's politics.

(Wikipedia put Gogol and Dostoevsky on the same side, but this is wrong.)

Gogol is a fascinating mysterious figure in his own right. For those interested, here is more on Gogol and Dostoevsky. I thoroughly recommend Dead Souls. It's one of the funniest things you are likely to read.

http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2009/01/fragment-0128.html

http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2008/12/dead-souls-nikolai-gogol.html
(see third paragraph especially)

oh, I forgot your other questions: #2 I don't know, lol, but can you share your thoughts on the relationship between Sartre and NFU? That I would love to hear more of.

And Translunary means:
1 situated beyond or above the moon; superlunary.
2.
celestial, rather than earthly.
3.
ideal; visionary.

> Henri, why did you call James Joyce names ? Does he make you remember some nasty experience in your youth ? Do you want to speak about it ?

Now concentrate on the matter at hand, Captain, otherwise we will be forced to dildo whip you.

free of charge ?

snort!!!!!!!

Dammit I should not eat lunch and read anything from you at the same time!

Tit-bits:
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-grand-inquisitor-story-7
http://camqtly.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/1/49
http://www.fyodordostoevsky.com/quotes.php
http://world.std.com/~raparker/exploring/tseliot/works/london-letters/london-let...

I've only read the first chapter of "Wet Snow", but I can't help thinking the name of the protagonist is Raskolnikov. He has the same whiny attitude of unrecognized, unearned entitlement mixed with disdain. An attitude that seems all too prevalent in today's America. There is no one more whiny than a frightened, old, white man. For all his whining about how much society's victims whine, they are the whiniest victims of all. The Tea-Party is one great big feel sorry for yourself whine fest. I'd like to see what Willa Cather would do with them, or Mark Twain for that matter.

One last comment with regard to Sartre: I don't care much for him, but I do like Camus. He tells a better story.

154: Yes, I am totally with you on Camus. Although I have really only read The Stranger, I am looking forward to reading The Plague in the Salon later this season.

I read C&P as a teen and don't remember it that well but my vague memories are also tallying with yours.

#154 gene: My Simpsons quotes are usually only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but this time I think it's actually relevant: "Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre!"

>139 absurdeist:: EnriqueFreeque,

I don't see why one cannot extend to a public figure or a stranger the common courtesy one would have toward a LT member or "salonista". Are we not all human beings?

Thank you for enlightening me on the concepts of "projection" and 'reaction formation". I never realized that the impulse (for lack of a better word) to defend others against perceived threats might be a result of projecting one's own weakness onto others and, by "reaction formation", attempt to counter that weakness with a show of strength. In the same vein, resort to violence is the reaction formation of weakness of character, and extreme skepticism of gullibility.

I like the name of your salon, "of the people for the people". The perfect definition of a Utopia, though Lincoln might have thought otherwise. Imagine yourself visiting a Utopia, and one of the elders comes up to you, and instead of "Bienvenue" or "Cómo está", you're greeted with, "What are you? Tell me about your mother."

"What are you? Tell me about your mother."
Lol. Reads like a funny mistranslation. Those tricky pronouns & false cognates, you know...

> 156 Sartre probably is smarter, but Camus is definitely better....

Mr Murr & other contributors, this is a rivetingly good thread, one of the few I have had time to follow recently. And while a little bit of challenge and controversy is a good thing, I think the ding dong with booksontrial is built on a fallacy.

I have only recently come across booksontrial via his/her club read thread and this thread, but I am pretty confident that he/she is a similar personality to me (I won't mention Myers Briggs again as I know many do not see value in it - oh damn I do seem to have mentioned it!!!), but using myself as an example, I would come into a thread that interested me want ing to ask questions. The more interested i was the more I would ask. And I would not always have the social skills to understand that some people see this as rude, beause that would be furthest from my mind.

Hope i haven';t misrepresented you booksontrial, but just didn't want to see several people I respect fall out over what (I think) is a misunderstanding.

Oh, and I am still on page 20 of NFTU - not because i don't like it - it is fascinating, but time is a precious comodity for me at the moment.

#141 Gene - you've got me thinking, although in a different direction from your post.

I've been having trouble with the logic in Notes. In the first part the cranky underground man argues that we are irrational. In the second part we are given us a wild ride of a story that explains how our man became the underground man. But, it's not a defense of being irrational. He was too wild. I'm having trouble seeing how the 2nd part relates to his philosophy in the first part...and I mean coherently.

After reading Gene's post (#141), a few light blubs have turned on. First of all, in the first section our underground man gives us a rational argument about the importance of irrationality - a contradiction? Then it struck - our man has evolved from a young impulsive irrational man who was so hurt by his own actions, he's withdrawn to the safety of rationality. He praises irrationality, but he's thoroughly rational through-and-through. And, it's his extreme rationality has lead him to basically be unable to do anything - he's frozen as every action has a rational reason to not do it. His state of being the underground man is actually a state of being overly rational...

alas, I've contrived (or contorted) a polemic from this: The underground is right. Rationality only exists within the human mind, and the world and humans are essentially irrational. But, being irrational is dangerous, and it can lead us to, among other things, self-inflict the most painful injuries on ourselves. Rationalism, on the other hand, is a safe, cold place where we can retreat when the real world is too rough - and it leads us only to a dark underground cave.

Murr - have I made a wrong turn yet?

If I'm going the right direction - Chernyshevsky tried to show how rationalism leads to something like a utopian society. FD has responded by having rationalism lead, instead, to a dark lonely hole in the ground.

(PS - I posting having not yet read posts 142-160)

(PSS - today is the first day I've had coffee in over a week - so, please forgive...)

>161 dchaikin: Dan, what's with the coffee? I'd be dead without coffee for a week -DEAD!

As far as the relation between part 1 and part 2, the way I see it is that in the second part the underground man deals with the CENTRAL question: man never knowingly acts against his own self interest; while in the first part he deals with the PERIPHERAL questions caused by the central question. That's my reading of it, but I could be completely wrong. I hope that's helpful?

I think you are absolutely right in your reading. No wrong turns as far as I can see.

Rationalism, on the other hand, is a safe, cold place where we can retreat when the real world is too rough - and it leads us only to a dark underground cave.

Dostoevsky fought a running battle against rationalism all his life, one of the reasons being that it leads to isolation, to objectification of the human being. Especially during this period, he was promulgating the belief in brotherhood as an essential part of his philosophy. He held that Western rationalism was inimical to the creation of brotherhood. but we have to be careful not to confuse the underground man's views with Dostoevsky's views. One of the things I've learnt from my reading of Crime and Punishment recently is that Dostoevsky often puts the views he is arguing against in the mouths of the characters he wants us to sympathise with.

I want to apologise to booksontrial, and I sincerely hope she/he will continue to contribute to the discussion and ask questions. Thanks Zeno for pointing out what you pointed out. I felt a bit threatened that the same questions kept coming back in spite of my best efforts to answer them. Enrique rushed to my defence. I would like to ask booksontrial what s/he thinks of the validity of Dostoevsky's psychology as against Freudian psychology. i think that would be a fruitful discussion.

Also, regarding Sartre and Camus, I would like to stand up for Sartre. The Les chemins de la liberté trilogy is imo fantastic literature and I reread it every couple of years. I thoroughly recommend it.

Not having read What is to be Done by Chernyshevsky, I feel at something of a disadvantage here. I can only go by what I understand from NFU.

D, I'm glad my ramblings helped dislodge some thoughts. That's the best any of us can do. I can see your argument. Rationalism has frozen the Underground Man, hence his praise of the irrational. It's a tough balance: rational/irrational. It's the price we pay for our humanity.

#164 "Excuse me now, as I sense the need for some self-flaggellation myself, and have decided to boycott le salon litteraire in protest against myself. "

LOL. Good luck there.

#162 - Thanks Murr. I'll have to process that through again sometime.

As for the coffee - the last thing i ate/drank before I got sick last week was two cups of coffee. I know it wasn't exactly a cause-and-effect thing (although the coffee certainly made things worse), but still I could not face another cup of coffee afterward - until I arrived at work this morning in a walking coma.

Maybe a little humor is the ticket. I can't see old Dosty at a theatre in Liverpool laughing heartily at the Mikado, but who knows?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjQoHZfxdGs

Well, aren't we all just a bunch of underground ‘people’. I have been sitting back watching as this whole situation played out and I honestly understand it all. Let me explain:

Murr has been attacked on several levels of late as well as Todd and Enrique being the benevolent dictator that he is has jumped to his friend’s defense in both cases. In walks (what I hope will be our new friend) booksontrial with a curiosity regarding our underground man. All of this is on the heels of above mentioned attacks, mind you.

Books (may I call you Books?) desires a more in depth answer regarding Murr's - what I believe to be a flippant response regarding Mr. 'F' - sorry, I have a problem with all pyscho-babbling types. Murr becomes a little edgy regarding the persistent questioning about his Freud/Fraud stance and Books attempt at humor with the ‘expert witness’ is lost in translation. Now here comes Enrique to what he believes is Murr’s defense. At this time ‘Rique is having a difficult week which he has mentioned just before this all happened. Things then spiral out of control and here we are.

We are all dealing with our reaction/introspection to our underground man and honestly I believe playing out our irrational tendencies. Books had an honest desire for an explanation of our erudite cat’s review. Murr answered as much as he wanted on the subject of Freud/Fraud. Enrique jumped in after a bad week and his biting attempt at humor/defense was just that, ‘biting’. Books, feeling attacked strikes back and Murr tries to settle the waters and end the discussion. ‘Rique then spanks Books (quite unnecessarily imho) and Books smacks ‘Rique quite soundly.

In this medium we are reduced to our private interpretations of what others are saying without benefit of the visual and auditory nuances that go along with communication. Add to that our personal quirks and personalities will inevitably clash. Although I was not personally involved in this exchange I would like to extend my apologies for not stepping up to the plate sooner.

Now, in the immortal words of Rodney King… “Can’t we all just get along?”

I can sympathize with your coffee woes. I was a life long abuser of coffee until a few years ago when it started giving me severe gastroenteritis. I am now reduced to one cup on Saturday morning and, if the GE from that cup isn't too bad, another one on Sundays. Periodically, I have to quit altogether for months at a time to allow my stomach and GE tract to heal. I just can't handle the stuff any more. Getting old sucks and don't let anyone tell you differently. However, I'm not so old or incapacitated that the alternative looks in the least inviting, yet.

I'm going to jump into the Murr/Books issue with my two cents. That's a tuppenny piece for you Brits out there. Sorry, Mac I can't help you. Why? You may ask. Well, it's just who I am.

Most of the time the conversations are helpful, pleasant, stimulating, and enjoyable. LT has, for better or worse, become a high point of my day. However, that said, I first signed on to a bulletin board on the internet in 1989, and have known people who have been on boards since the late 70's, of course this was all well before the days of the World Wide Web and the information superhighway. Those days were truly and indeed the wild wild west of the internet, the days when UseNet (or UUNet, I use them interchangeably. I believe that arm of the internet is referred to as newsgroups now) was king. If you didn't sit down at the keyboard with an asbestos flack jacket you wouldn't last five minutes. You want to know what happened to civility in the age of digital information? It got massacred on UseNet. I've been involved in and watched some of the most legendary flame wars of all time. I learned that if someone said something crossways to me, it might have been a compliment so be careful how I react. A tiff like the one between Murr and Books was how most people said good morning to each other. Now, I'm not advocating going back to those days. Lt provides a much more welcoming and less threatening environment for our kind of conversations, but I am saying let's keep things in perspective. Disagreements will arise, some will be heated, we try to keep ourselves within bounds and are more or less successful. Sometimes our inner a**hole just comes roaring out. It can't be helped. But let's also not forget that we are a community, and like all communities familiarity breeds comfort and occasionally comfort leads to taking liberties, or making strong assertions because we are comfortable with one another. From time to time, we all need to take a step back, take a deep breath and let it go.

Welcome, booksontrial, please stick around and give us your perspective on our discussions. We need it.

Aha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU

You go down there! (cuz, I'm not!... You can't make me!)

Wow... I finally finished it. I am a sick woman... I am a spiteful woman. I am underground.

I am swimming in introspection right now. I have so much to say and not the words to express it that would do it justice. And quite frankly, not too sure a public forum is the right place at that. It has encompassed all thought right now. I suppose I will have to dig out my old comp book and put it down there. Maybe a freeflow would be a really good thing.

Thanks, Murrshka... I truly needed to read this.

Slips out the back to her corner to write.

>169 geneg:
huh ?

157> well said! You sound like a salonista. If I can dish it, I can certainly take it.

Listen, booksontrial, I misjudged you. I was rude and unwelcoming. I blew it. I apologize and am sorry for insulting/offending/whatever-you'd-like-to-call-it (take your pick), to you. If you've lurked for awhile or decide to stick around for awhile (I'll second geneg's and Tani's sentiments re. hoping you'll stick around and contribute), I trust you'll discover how out-of-character my posts to you were. An aberration. When I'm done here, I'm going to go up there and delete them.

Your blog is excellent, btw. Perhaps you're familiar with how we "pimp" one another around here (mostly our reviews) but your blog is worthy of some serious pimpage in my estimation. I like what you said about Tolstoy's Confession. I've written about that profound book too.

booksontrial's blog ... check it out!

174: You know I like a good quote. Who doesn't? Its fun to look for/think about while you are reading.

I just finished Part I and will roll into the Wet Snow tonight or tomorrow.

Thank you all for your kindness, patience and understanding.

After reading these messages of all you wonderful, sweet people, I'm reminded of the great silent film actor Charlie Chaplin, "Words seem so futile, so feeble".

I can honestly say that I bear no ill will, grudge or rancor against anyone, and have enjoyed my short stay here in the salon. Who knew it would cause such a stir and even emotional stress! Even all our attempts at humor went awry. sigh.. But, all is not lost.

In the words of Victor Hugo, "The jostlings of young minds against each other have this wonderful attribute, that one can never foresee the spark, nor predict the flash."

>158 Medellia:: Medellia,

Thank you for picking up the humor! It does sound funny. :)

>159 zenomax:: zenomax,

Thank you for speaking on my behalf. We do have something in common. :) Which Myers-Briggs personality type are you?

>162 tomcatMurr:: tomcatMurr,

My apology for pushing you so hard that you feel a bit threatened. It was selfish and rude of me to pick your brain like that.

>167 highdesertlady:: tc53591,

Thank you for providing the background information on the state of the salon before I "walked in". We put on quite a show, didn't we? :) Did you get excited by all the "spanking" and "smacking"?

>169 geneg:: geneg,

I remember those Usenet days too. Those flame wars helped sharpen one's mind and rhetoric skills to some extent, but at what a great cost!

>174 absurdeist:: EnriqueFreeque,

Believe it or not, I enjoyed our jostling. No need to apologize at all. Yes, your posts did seem insulting at first read, but on reflection, the fire in your words kindled ideas. Besides, anyone who defends Tolstoy, as you so passionately did, is my friend. :)

Awwwwwww, everybody. I know it's out of place on the NFU thread, but I yam who I yam, so....

Before:


After:

Ahhh! Mmmuuuuaaaaahhhh!

#176 It was somewhat exciting... What would Freud say? Oh! I am a prevert er voyeur er oh hell, I am underground. 8-/

Has everyone noticed the new image heading up the group page? EF - I like your style!

>176 booksontrial: MBTI = INTJ

176> oh good, that's great to hear! What's this "short stay in the salon" business you speaketh of, though? Hmmpphh! What if we collectively decide to inundate you with invites to le salon? You may have no choice but to stick around!

Thanks everyone for stepping in, who stepped in, to remind me of who I am and what this place is really about (and maybe more importantly, not about).

Glad you like the pic, Zeno. I'm an INFJ, btw. Guess I "feel" more than "think" than you, Z.

Murr, apologies to you for getting us so off track and topic.

Question re. NFU (and pardon my ignorance and laziness, could easily look it up, suppose) but anyway, in chap. VII, Dostoy mentions "farcical Schleswig-Holstein"...to what or to whom is D. referring?

Another great quote (love 'em too, slick), from chap. VIII:

I even believe that the best definition of man is -- a creature that walks on two legs and is ungrateful. Here here!

Never apologize EF, you are the life of this thing.

#180 Schleswig-Holstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-Holstein )- was, for a long time, a Germanic-majority/Danish minority area under Danish rule along the Prussia-Denmark border. This was when Denmark was a major power-player in Europe. Things changed when Prussia started unifying Germany under Bismark. The chain of events was heavily manipulated and pretty farcical.

1848 - First War of Schleswig between Prussian and Denmark where Denmark won. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_War_of_Schleswig )

1864 - Second War of Schleswig - Denmark vs Prussia and Austria/Hungary. This time Denmark lost, losing the territory. (It happens to have been the last victory of Austria/Hungary - but Dodo couldn't know that when Notes was published in 1864).

(later, after WWI, the northern 2/3 of Schleswig was able to chose their country by referendum. The northern 1/3 voted Denmark and the middle third voted Germany - and the borders have not been challenged since.)

ETA this link to a helpful map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jutland_Peninsula_map.PNG

Is that where they put egg on their veal?

Robert

huh? &-/

I'm remembering this from thirty or forty years ago. A Navy compadre telling of a restaurant said he was offered wiener schnitzel, and he replied "auf holstein?" which got him in good with the German proprietor. He explained to me that wiener schnitzel auf holstein was veal with an egg on top. Now I may have remembered every single detail of that wrong, but I do remember it, and I was looking for some kind of verification.

Robert

I cannot verify this, but I will say that it sounds like a lot of cholesterol.

I think we need a poem:

...The country shivers, and the convict from Omsk
Understood everything, and made the sign of the cross
Over us all. Now like some kind of spirit
In this primordial chaos he shuffles, rises.
Midnight. His pen squeaks. Page after page stinks
Of the square where he awaited execution.
This is when we decided to be born
and, having timed it perfectly not to miss
The spectacles and entertainments still
to come, we bid farewell to non-existence.

Anna Akhmatova
from Northern Elegies #1

('the convict from Omsk' is of course Dostoevsky...)

I've finished and reviewed Notes from Underground. Thanks tomcat for getting us going on this.

Now, I am seated in an office, surrounded by heads and bodies. ... Will I surface for air, or sink beneath the weight? Only time knows, and he ain't tellin'.

Nice review gene: I think the UGM is more wannabe John Sartre than John Galt, though. The UGM captured a certain late-adolescent/young adult and (I think - I'd be very interested in hearing otherwise) male experience. The scariest thing is that its not especially exxagerated. (Or limited to youth.)

Part I is the thought process - even if the thoughts produced have some validity the obsessive manner of thinking is as personally destructive as any actions. Part II is where it will get you.

The internet seems to be a place where a lot of basement dwellers can let it all hang out. Alternately, where a lot can let their basement dweller hang out.

These aren't very literary reactions, I suppose. Should I punch somebody? Was the earlier dust-up a sock puppet recreation of Part II?

lol! the thought crossed my mind as well...

The underground man is pretty nerdish, I guess. But I have to clarify one thing, slick, part II takes place BEFORE part I, so it's less a case of 'where it will get you', than 'how you get there'.

Great review, Geneg.

Oh, and I forgot to add, that the Schleswig Holstein joke also appears in Crime and Punishment written two years after NFU. I guess it was kind of like a contemporary reference to Afghanistan.

Thanks for the clarification Murr. I have developed a completely not-fact-based theory that these are two pieces FD wrote when he was younger that he united and revised when he was older. Does the thoery correspond at all to reality?

You're most heartily welcome.

That theory is not right at all, I'm afraid. NFU was conceived as a unity in response to specific circumstances. There are subtle correspondences between the two parts.

Interestingly, although Dostoevsky had the opportunity to revise earlier work later in his life when he was the favourite of the Tsar and famous throughout Russia, he never did, even works which had been butchered by the censors, as indeed NFU was.

I suppose he was always too busy with the next project to look back.

#191 - Along the same thought process, I was under the impression that NFU was dramatically different from anything FD had previously published - based on a collection of FD short stories I read awhile back. But then, somewhere, maybe above, you mentioned NFU is similar to some things FD had previously published in some of his periodical-ish stuff. So, I'm wondering, was NFU a break/turning point or a continuing of a trend.

But, then, perhaps I should pay you tuition before I ask that. :)

Baby's Touch 'N Feel Guide to Russian Literature

Not their best, but apropos?

hah nice!

>192 dchaikin:: Dan, this is a tricky one.
I don't see NFU as radically different from anything D had written before, except perhaps in the technnical innovation of inverting the 'natural' order of the two parts and the unrelenting cynicism.

However, seeds of the underground man's cynicism can be found in many characters from the early novels, especially Humiliated and Insulted and The Village of Stepanchikovo.

The Liza plot of the second part of NFU is practically identical to an early story The Landlady; and the reunion dinner is very similar to an episode in The Double.

The tone and manner of the first part is very similar to Dostoevsky's real voice in his journalism of the period: digressive, argumentative, polyglossial.

Placing NFU in the context of those books that came before and those that come after, I can't see any real breakthrough.

#194 - Thanks Murr!

182> and thank you (belatedly), dchaikin, for that great info.

tomcat, anybody, have you read Turgenev's Diary of a Superfluous Man? I'm reading it in a Turg omnibus and the similarity between its self-recriminating protagonist obsessed with his own mediocrity/malfeasance and Dostoy's in NFU are remarkable. I know Dostoy and Turg had a falling out at some point (the timeline escapes me), but what I don't know is whether Dostoy was commenting/critiquing Turgenev's earlier work in his Notes, do you know?

sorry for my late reply to this, Henri. Dairy is next up on my list after the Idiot.

from Prince Mirsky's History of Russian Literature

TDOASM (1850) is reminiscent of Gogol and the young Dostoevsky developing as it does the Dostoevskyan theme of humiliated human dignity and of morbid delight in humiliation, but aspiring to a Gogol-like and very un-Turgenevian verbal intensity.. (The phrase "A superfluous man" had an extraordinary fortune and is still applied by literary and social historians to the type of ineffective idealist portrayed so often by T and his contemporaries.)

The second half of NFU, which is set in the 1840s, is a critique of the superfluous generation (hence the meaning of the joke the underground man mutters to himself as he rushes out to the brothel - "at last the encounter with reality"- a core concern of the superfluous, Hegel-obsessed generation of the 1840s.

I hope that helps?

Harold Bloom is as often filled with nonsense as he is with sense or common sense. In this intro. to his ed. of Dosoievsky he shows us each of these.

D. always suffered from a sense of inferiority to Tolstoy as we can see in this apparent praise of the titan to the critic Strakov:
I see that you hold LT in very high regard: I agree that here is much of OUR OWN; but not that much. And yet, OF ALL OF US, in my opinion, he has succeeded best in expressing more of what is us, and is thus worth talking about.

Quite aside from his substantial jealousy in regard to W&P, D. implies that the Russian God is missing from Tolstoy, which is happily true. Presumably, THE LIFE OF A GREAT SINNER, D's projected novel, would have given full voice to D's Great Russian messianism, so we can be grateful the book was never written. D. was a pillar of Russian Orthodoxy: he believed that the Great Russian Christ would carry God to the rest of the world. Tolstoy, excommunicated by the Orthod. Ch:, could hardly be a larger contrast. The image of the Father for D., ideally was the Tsar, rep. of the Russian God. Tolstoy was his own image of the father: his severely rationalized God expressed ultimately his own horror of mortality.
Ideologically and spiritually, D. is hard to bear: a racist Great Russian, he hated Jews, and loathed and feared the U.S., which for him was nothing but Nihilism.

And yet the aesthetic greatness of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is unquestionable. D. the novelist transcends the idolizer of the Tsar, the anti-semite, the enemy of human freedom. The writer D. was another self, distinct from the prophet of Orthodox Russian messianism. Tolstoy was essentially similar as a natural man and as the seer of W&P. D. unlike T., was a great parodist: it may even be said that satiric parody is the center of Dostoevsky's art. More even than powerful, absolute parosy is corrosive. Something in D. is always on the verge of parodying even his own religiosity, even his worship of authority.

The best critical account of this peculiar strength in D. is of course Mikhail Bakhtin's, whose PROBLEMS OF DOSTOEVSKY'S POETICS demonstrates that parody is another name for D's dialectical polyphony, in which opposing voices are allowed full play. Still, Bakhtin's formalistic analysis applies equally as well to Dickens and Balzac, neither of whom carries parody to the border of madness, as D. sometimes does. Something of astonishing force can break loose in D., as it does in Shakespeare, whose nihilism (as I would interpret it) was a major influence on Dostoevsky's deep, innate nihilism, as distinct from the Russian Nihilsm he parodied. The daemonic, personified by Iago transcends D's poetics.

The intro closes with:
None of us wants to be Svidrigailov, or Stavrogin, or old Karamazov, but their intensity, daemonic and unconfined, seduces us also. Dostoevsky owed immediate debts to Gogol (whom he parodied) and, to a lesser degree, to Balzac and Dickens. From Shakespeare, he learned something larger, which he successfully incarnated with savage brilliance in his grand nihilists. Bakhtin remarked that in D. "a person's every act reveals him in his totality." That seems to me even truer of Shakespeare's persons, where outward action and psychic inwardness are uncannily fused. Whatever his ideological excesses, and despite his ignoble hatreds, the artist in Dostoevsky was Shakespeare's student.

197> Helps indeed. Thanks, Murr!