- Amazon Student members save an additional 10% on Textbooks with promo code TEXTBOOK10. Enter code TEXTBOOK10 at checkout. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Notes From Underground: 150th Anniversary Edition Mass Market Paperback – Nov 2 2004
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
To get the free app, enter your e-mail address or mobile phone number.
About the Author
Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881), one of nineteenth-century Russia’s greatest novelists, spent four years in a convict prison in Siberia, after which he was obliged to enlist in the army. In later years his penchant for gambling sent him deeply into debt. Most of his important works were written after 1864, including Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov, all available from Penguin Classics.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Top Customer Reviews
Notes From Underground is one of Dostoevsky's shorter works, it is very intriging so you will find that you finish it very quickly.
The first part of the novel offers little to no plot. It is basically just philosophical rambling from the first-person narrorator. Don't let the world, 'rambling' confuse you, this book is very serious and thought provoking.
In the second part of the novel we are introduced to some characters beside the narrorator and we see the reason for the rambling in the first part of the novel.
I think that most people who read Dostoevsky can relate to his feelings around other people. He is alone, he feels like people are judging him. People don't want him around, but he is too proud to admit any of this.
The novel deals with how much we can know before it becomes dangerous. When we know too much we might find things that we do not want to know. Does this mean we should stop our search for truth? What if in our search we discover that there is no truth? This is a very thought provoking novel.
I highly reccomend this latest translation, it is very easy to read, much better than the old translation of Crime and Punishment that I read. I am in fact considering re-reading these novels just because these new Translators do a very good job.
Buy this book alongside Hunger by Knut Hamsun as they deal with a lot of the same ideas and were written very close to each other in a timeline.Read more ›
the underground man is an interesting character because throughout the novel he liberally depreciates himself and celebrates his own misery. he says that he is doomed to be miserable because of his intelligence, because he has the capacity to critically observe the world, and yet because of this very fact he says that he can never be an insect. this reminds me of a quote from Nietzsche 'even a man who despises himself respects himself as one who despises'. but overall, this over critical approach to living hinders the underground man so that he is quite passive throughout the novel, despite his words, which i suppose could be considered an action of sorts. and it's because of this passivity that he fails at connecting with others, isolating himself with his thoughts. now it could be argued that his refusal to act is an expression of his utilizing his freedoms. he acts in a way that is not accepted by society, which is why he is so isolated, but by isolating himself, he is demonstrating that he has the capacity to exercise free thought and action, to not blindly follow the status quo. his outcast status is the ultimate freedom, and yet he's so miserable, which would tie into the intelligence bit.Read more ›
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
The writing is absolutely brilliant. Dostoyevsky does not seem to have created this character but instead pulled him from the street. The character was not one dimensional, an attribute that I found personally refreshing . The thoughts and emotions are complex and real and were constantly understated, adding to the impression that the book was written by the character himself, who lacks writing experience needed to capture these feelings.
The main character views himself cut off and removed from society, rejected by all in nearly every way. He has become so obsessed with this notion that he has created this exact situation as a result of searching for justification of this impression. He has in fact created most of his own misery, and only continues to propagate more. Yet he seem himself as miserable and rejected and finds pride in this image. He imagines himself to be pitiful and also to be strong and fiercely independent as a result of his social isolation. He feels he poses a strength of spirit for being able to endure the loneliness and envisions himself as a martyr.
This fuels his ego and he plans heroic acts in order to show the proof of his worth or to win attention and love. He however lacks the courage to complete the monumental self serving tasks he set before himself. Through a strange twist of logic these failures are also seen as something to be admired. It only makes him more pitiful and thus a greater martyr. When these failures are personally humiliating he retreats within in himself. Hating everyone and again fortifying his independence, claiming that all who depend on others are weak. Only to re-emerge more hungry for the affections of a companion.
An emotional ebbing between pride of independence and ability to bravely endure the suffering quickly switching to the opposite pole of resenting people in general. Sustaining himself on the imagined praises or pity that he thinks would be lavished upon him if he were to be seen by others as he sees himself.
A terribly tragic tale that emphasis the importance of perspective and removing one's self from a problem in order to perhaps gain a helpful assessment of it. The ideas and emotions presented give a haunting impression. The book should be read slowly and turned over in ones mind again and again.
Perhaps the best translation I've found to date is that by Andrew MacAndrew, available in a Signet Classics edition. MacAndrew's prose has a vigor and modern clarity that truly make this work speak to the reader - the Underground Man truly comes to life as a living, breathing character with a relevance and immediacy.
For all the praise the Pevear/Volokhonsky translations have gotten, I do not think they necessarily surpass the efforts of those who came before them in this particular instance. Although a big fan of their Tolstoy, the Dostoevsky comes off somewhat comparatively muted.
Compare MacAndrew's rendering of the opening words in which the Underground Man introduces himself:
"I'm a sick man... a mean man. There's nothing attractive about me. I think there's something wrong with my liver. But, actually, I don't know a damn thing about my sickness; I'm not even too sure what it is that's ailing me."
"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. However, I don't know a fig about my sickness and am not sure what it is that hurts me."
Of the two, MacAndrew's Underground Man obviously speaks a more contemporary English. I am aware that this has actually been a criticism of his. In fact, many readers might actually be put off by the brusque and terse take or find it even slightly disturbing. Purists will also doubtless find much to annoy them about MacAndrew's more interpretive (as opposed to literal) approach to translation. The Pevear/Volokhonsky actually appeared in 1993, about 30 years after MacAndrew's. There's nothing particularly wrong with their version. It has a stately, nuanced charm and is apparently much truer to Dostoevsky's original in the literal sense (to the point of translating his flaws and idiosyncrasies). But personally, as a reader, I just got much more out of reading the MacAndrew translation. You immediately get a taste of the angst of this character from MacAndrew's terse, flippant diction.
Two others to take note of: The classic Constance Garrett translation can still be found in a cheap Barnes and Noble Classics edition, along with a good selection of Dostoevsky's shorter works. Garnett's haphazard, hasty, and somewhat reckless method of translation has been much criticised, as has her quaintly Victorian diction. Mirra Ginsberg's translation in the Bantam Classics series matches the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation almost word-for-word, although I find the wording where she deviates to actually be better overall.
The book is presented in two parts. Part one `Underground' is written in the form of the nameless narrator's rambling thoughts on reason and his claim that throughout history, human actions have been anything but influenced by reason. Underground Man's charge is that man values most the freedom to choose to act in opposition to reason's dictates. Dostoyevsky's critique of reason then, although it demands attention and is somewhat difficult to follow, sets the philosophical foundations for the rest of the book.
Part two `A Propos of the Wet Snow' is much easier to read, as the narrator recounts three episodes which happened when he was fifteen years younger and working as a civil servant in St. Petersburg. The first considers an incident in which an army officer insults him and goes on to detail Underground Man's subsequent internal anguish at his inability to commit an act of retribution. The second episode takes place at a farewell dinner for an acquaintance named Zverkov. The narrator is utterly disgusted with the company in which he finds himself but despite this, he is unable - even though he desires it - to make them realise this. The third episode details Underground Man's brief, painful and emotional relationship with a prostitute.
Dostoyevsky is refreshing in this book thanks not only to his incredibly powerful prose, but also for the intense but subtle way in which the stories reflect and indeed embody his philosophical theories. This dark and pessimistic portrayal of the nature of man may not sit very comfortably with many readers, however the ideas expressed in `Notes From The Underground' are as relevant and worthy of deliberation now as I am sure they were in 1864.
The underground man never had any experiences of love or emotional relationship, thus he relies in his youth on literature and drama where he gets high expectations of ideal relationships and morals. However, real life interactions and relationships traumatize him with reality that he doesn't know how to accept.
In his forties, the underground man doesn't crave human interactions or attention any more, or have passionate ideas about any thing like he did in his youth, and he knows no other way than anger and bitterness to deal with people. Even though his intimidating way of dealing with people brings him humiliation and pain, he still enjoys thinking that he is practicing his free will. Ironically, the humiliation he brings down on himself is empowering and satisfying to the underground man. As long as he has choice and free will, he is still alive and active like others, regardless of the consequences of the choices he makes.
Whether Dostoevsky wrote notes from Underground as a scream against rationalism and utopianism, or if he was symbolizing his own alienation from the modern Russian society, he just did a great job. Every detail in the book is worth reading.
_The "underground" writer of these tales is a man that has come to loath himself. He loathes himself because he knows that he is not a true human being in any sense. He knows that he is a cog in a machine. He is told that logic, rationalism, and materialism are everything. He has been told that he has no free will that everything is predetermined by natural laws and statistics. He has even been told that he is no more than an evolved ape, so even his religion has been stripped from him. All that is important is profit and comfort- and to serve the machine in his own minor soul killing way as a petty bureaucrat. This is what has convinced him that it is better to resign from society and live as a recluse. Far better not to contribute to the great, inescapable soul-killing system.
_But that is just it- Dostoevsky is making a point in order to forcibly shake his reader out of his or her complacency. He is trying to demonstrate the unnatural nature of a materialistic life lived neurotically and pettily from the head and not the heart. He is also trying to point out those events in ordinary life that hint at there being something more- things that cannot be described with a formula or a chart. Dostoevsky had found the truth in his deep mystic faith in God. This book was a wake-up call to put others on the transcendent path by demonstrating just how inhuman the modern westernized mind-set was.
_This is not an existential novel- it is a transcendent one. This book demonstrates what a hell results when you forcibly amputate the Holy from Holy Russia. It is what happens when you exile the sacred from all our lives.