In class on Tuesday, we had an important discussion on whether or not Dostoevsky's main character, the Underground Man, provides solutions to any of his previously proposed problems in the final chapter of Notes from Underground. We also discussed how there was a chapter in Notes dedicated to offering solutions to such problems that was taken out. Regardless of the deleted chapter, there are some remnants of Dostoevsky's thoughts that may have related directly to the deleted scene of his novella.
To elaborate on Dostoevsky's thoughts that translate through the Underground Man in the final chapter of the novella, it is clear that by the end of the narrative that Dostoevsky had deliberately created the Underground Man as the story's "anti-hero." This is clear since the Underground Man explains that this was in order to produce an impression that is incredibly displeasing to all readers so that they may understand that the fantastical, whimsical nature of books is not always promised to an audience in real life. In brief, the initial questions that the Underground Man posed to the reader were answered in a roundabout manner by the character's admittance to being an anti-hero. It verified for all readers that the Underground Man, from the beginning of the read, had been an unreliable narrator.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think we can all agree that the Underground Man is DEFINITELY an unreliable narrator. I can think of two main reasons for this--one that the Underground Man points out himself and one that stems from his personality and character in general.
In Part I, the Underground Man tells the reader that he will attempt to write a confession about his past. He also discusses how humans lie about themselves not only to others, but also TO themselves as well. He says that it is almost impossible for humans to be 100% truthful, even when they are alone in their own thoughts. Although the Underground Man says he will try to be as truthful as possible, his account of the events from his past is told from his perspective, and it is undeniably unreliable. For example, if we take his interaction with Liza directly from his point of view (without separating ourselves from the novella), she seems like a pretty hopeless character--the Underground Man says she is. However, if we view Liza and the Underground Man from a reader's perspective, we can see the Underground Man's hypocrisy. In truth, Liza has more relationships than he does and overall has a greater potential for change based on the emotional connections that she can form.
Another reason for his unreliability is that the Underground Man is so indecisive that he cannot write about an event from the past without contradicting his emotions or the story itself. He can't ever make any decisions in his life (which we can see as the reader), so his feelings towards others are constantly changing. For example, he emotionally connects with Liza, and she comforts him; half an hour later, he is paying her for sleeping with him. Five minutes after that, he chases after her in the street, wanting forgiveness. I believe Dostoevsky does an amazing job of writing from an indecisive character's perspective. He really makes us question everything his narrator says because the narrator can't ever make up his mind.
Post a Comment