how strongly did you relate to the narrator in this?
are you supposed to relate to the narrator? according to a note in my edition by dostoyevsky he sort of alluded to a presence of such a character being a rare but necessary occurence but I feel as though a lot of his characterisation is presented in a lot of the people around me and sometimes even in myself.
inb4 hes literally me
omg he's literally me XDDDD i'm a quirky loser too!!!!XDDDDDDDDDDDD
fpbp
But I really am and people despise me for simply existing.
Yes.
That’s not a good thing anon
he is way WAY more autistic and bitter towards other people than I am, but i can certainly identify with some of his other personal failings
He hit way too close to home for me.
One of you please explain. I thought the intention was that his philosophy be an unrealistic exaggeration of Dostoevsky’s own critique of technocrats. I identify with some of the UM’s points like “Men will behave irrationally just to prove he has free will.” But the UM’s philosophy of life in its entirety is just so far from what I can imagine anyone holding to, aside from a school shooter. Do you really take pleasure in your pain? Do you really torture others for pleasure?
Based post, this is always what i thought when I read notes and found everybody on the internet finding him relatable - but it certainly explains a lot about our society when you realise most people think that way, certainly the most spiteful among us who wish harm upon others (like reddit's hermaincainawards). I absolutely agree with everything you've said, and it's refreshing to read it from somebody else. I actually posted about this on here a month and a half ago. Here's an archive of it, if you're interested.
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S20385339
When I tried to reference a section in the book recently, instead of reaching for my copy of the novella I just quickly googled a pdf online and got a completely different translation. I couldn't help but read on, and after reading more of Dostoevsky's works since, my view on him did altar slightly - but ultimately remains much in the same vein. How relatable people find him still staggers me.
Sorry for blogpost, but I think there are two main types of people who relate to the UM, one being the absolute reject unbearable masoquist superiority syndrome homosexuals who are simply mentally ill, and people who can relate with his situation (not being a man of action) and how it led to him becoming the way he is, not necessarily relating to the man himself, but to the idea that that could have been them
A common comment I see when discussing this book is how it helps the reader look at themselves and find ways to self-improve, which is the exact opposite of how the UM acts. Well, thats not exactly true in the sense that the UM knows how despicable he is, but chooses to ignore it. He has looked at himself, and actively chooses to remain the same, or even double down and sink deeper into depravity. My point is that even with that "relatability", people seem to recognize how underground they might be, and how they can escape it before becoming something like the UM himself
Thanks for the response (I'm the guy who posted the link - I appreciate the blogpost. It's a topic I never feel like I fully have understood), I suppose that's true. I'll digest this.
The most overwhelming feature of the Underground Man to me is his bitterness and resentment, i.e, the first type of people that relate to him that you've mentioned - While the second element of him not being a man of action is true, it's always felt overshadowed by the first part, so I guess I never spent as much thought on it. The fact it's a catalyst for people I think is because of the fact his sloth (or, for him, his "consciousness") makes him bitter and spiteful - they're intrinsically tied together. I couldn't relate to either, but I can imagine seeing the portrait of somebody that low really motivating people who need a rebound.
On a funnier note, speaking of the first type of the two "literally me's", I compared it to the normie dislike of Holden Caulfield in the other thread, writing the greentext below and getting this reply back
>Why is he the target of spite and disgust and is disparaged without compassion, yet people seamlessly relate to an awful malicious human like Underground Man?
"You answered it yourself"
>I think is because of the fact his sloth (or, for him, his "consciousness") makes him bitter and spiteful - they're intrinsically tied together
Funnily enough I always thought of it as the opposite, that it was his bitterness and, perhaps, even envy towards the men of action that caused that behavior, leading to his self-destructing tendencies. He sees himself as a rat, and a rat he will be to the end, just proving with how much contempt he views the man of action.
I think the main aspect that leads people to relate to him, including myself somewhat, is how the UM sees himself as a more complex creature, while the man of action is compared to a bull, yet the latter goes through life in a much more serene and thoughtless manner without any effort while the former is stuck, alone, inside his own mind, certainly more self-aware, but with nothing to show for it.
I actually don't know why I found him so relatable. I just did, even though many of the Underground Man's traits are not so exaggerated in myself. It's been a while since I read the book.
The underground man is lonely, friendless wagie who clearly doesn't fit, is overly intellectual, and is locked in a state of constant self-consciousness, self-loathing, and feels himself so internally at odds with the reality of himself and the world around him that he chooses to live underground to cope. That's what I related to, not necessarily the pettiness or vindictiveness although obviously, I'm not free from those entirely.
>im a gay
>im a gay moron
What did the underground man mean by this?
his way of saying "i am literally you"
Strongly.
He was proto-Raskolnikov and i relate more with Raskolnikov.
>are you supposed to relate to the narrator?
Don't think so, and at the time the book was published people like him were really rare, i think most people never even met someone like him in their entire lives.
>Don't think so, and at the time the book was published people like him were really rare
The bolshevik revolution a few decades later recruited tons of people like this though.
The first half was literally uncomfortable to read. It was like staring into a mirror.
The whole philosophical bit at the beginning hit way too fricking close.
>supposedly disgusting to even look at
>mogs me in the beauty department
bros...
just dont be an obsessive jackass and go ouut and bee the change you want to see in the world instead of sitting around being bitter!
>Anyways, I hope you get this, man, hit me back
>Just to chat, truly yours, your biggest fan
>This is the Underground Man
When the prostitute opened his letter and saw this. Easily one of the top 10 worst book endings. What was Dostoevsky thinking bros?
Nice one anon
He's literally me
Therapy
>pay a israelite to yes you to death
Honest self reflection is better. Therapy is training wheels for an important life skill.
You read the book and get so angry at the underground man that you change your life.
I read this when I was young and got filtered during the first part
I remember that being boring as shit.
I should try again
The underground man is an insecure nihilist whose only shred of ego is based on the fact that he proves his free will by acting in spite of his best interest.
There are supposed to be some relatable qualities to him, but overall you should find his life a cautionary tale of a life without purpose or greater meaning.
Yep. Literally me. And it's too late to change.
"The underground man is an insecure nihilist whose only shred of ego is based on the fact that he proves his free will by acting in spite of his best interest."
Saved. You just broke my paradigm and finally worded the weird source of self-destructive ego that has stopped me since forever. Now I finally know what that arrogant confidence that I had was.
Thanks for aiding in the process of trying to break my absurdism/nihilism
Saved. I'll meditate on your words tomorrow
>are you supposed to relate to the narrator?
No, he's portraying someone with narcissistic personality disorder. He does the same thing in The Dream of a Ridiculous Man but in that one the character at least has some form of redemption at the end
is this worth reading if I'm too normal to finish the first part without going insane
Yes
I don’t think your supposed to relate to him. He’s clearly an example of a terrible person
You can check the internet all over for people saying "I feel sick - I find the Underground Man so relatable and feel horrified by it.". On here, plebbit, google - all over.
I don’t understand why this is considered so great. Most of the first part is just obvious psychology that I’ve known since I was 16.
I sympathize with him the same as I do all my fellow humans no matter how dumb gay and schizo they are. But I certainly don't relate to him.
Dinner scene is uncomfy kino
wish he caught up with them and it went on longer