As I read Underground Man, I often find myself making connections between it and Candide by Voltaire. For example, the Underground Man points out his need for something new and different. He says, "I know myself as surely as two times two, that it isn't really the underground that's better, but something different, altogether different, something that I long for, but I'll never be able to find!" Cacambo, similarly, longs for new and different adventures, even if they turn out bad. He regularly travels, searching for something but never knowing what that something might be. When they cultivate the garden at the end of the story, Voltaire shows his opposition to this longing for a new life. He thinks people should spend their time being productive rather than constantly fantasizing about "what else is out their".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I keep finding comparisons between the underground man and Oskar. They both talk/write in a stream of consciousness style. They both directly acknowledge the reader and try to appeal to the reader's sense of compassion. They complain about society and constantly find things about themselves that they despise, but acknowledge their own genius compared to the rest of society's.They act as if their self loathing is a consequence of their brilliance, but in fact their isolation from the rest of society causes their self loathing. I find both of their self-pitying attitudes really annoying, but that was both author's intent.
I agree with both of you. I always seem to find pieces of Candide and Oskar within the underground man. I find a lot of Oskar's cynicism and self-loathing, yet he is distinctly different in that he constantly struggles to prove his self-worth, whereas Oskar simply doesn't care. Like in Candide, I find the underground man expresses the greatest evil within humanity: boredom. He constantly urges us to be productive, and that our logic/reasoning will ultimately be our downfall.
We also keep comparing the underground man to Grendel. I keep thinking of him as mix of the three characters, even though they all really show different aspects of him. I am glad that we have read these novels before the underground man because I think I can understand his cynicism and self-loathing better. Every time we feel sorry for Grendel he then goes off and eats people, yet we still sympathize with him because of his loneliness and boredom. I like to think of the underground man's depression as a result of his nihilistic views. Because of this I am able to sympathize to a certain extent (very little) for the underground man like Grendel.
I absolutely agree with all of these comparisons. It's funny because I constantly think the Underground Man has a multi-personality disorder, so it makes sense that we can compare all of these characters to him because he was so many personalities to compare to. Like we mentioned in class, I also find a lot of the Dragon from Grendel in Underground Man. Like the Dragon, Underground Man reflects a Nihilism-like philosophy. I also find when I read the dragon, Underground Man, and Oskar their cynical attitudes all seem to manage to make me cynical. Not in the sense that I begin to agree with their philosophies, but more like I feel depressed listening to them.
I definitely see similarities between elements in Notes from the Underground, Tin Drum, Candide, and Grendel. One that hasn't been brought up in this post, but that strikes me the most is the connections with Hamlet. Hamlet, like the Underground Man, constantly curses conscience for the impediment of action. They both agree that over-analyzation becomes a threat instead of a advantage. This theme of the harmfulness of conscience is also similar to the "empty philosophy" warned about in Candide.
I see that in both Candide and in Notes from the Underground there seems to be an emphasis on boredom. I also agree with the points that you all have made about the similarities between Oskar and the underground man, both seem cynical and egotistical.
I still haven't decided if I like the underground man's character or not. I find some of his arguments humorous but absurd. Sometimes i actually agree with what he is saying. Most of the time I'm annoyed by the way he continues to contradict himself every other paragraph.
Post a Comment