Scan barcode
zhivak's review against another edition
5.0
I am biased towards this, mostly because it was deeply relatable. Not word for word, of course, but there is this very specific taste of loneliness that manifests no matter how many people might surround you and it's soaked through the pages of Dostoevsky. You will either understand this book or you will not and that's fine. It was written for specific people, most probably.
catflapper's review against another edition
challenging
dark
funny
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
visethneak's review against another edition
challenging
funny
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
smyles42's review against another edition
4.0
I am giving this book four stars because I recognize it's philosophical importance and merit. That being said, I did not enjoy reading this book. It was a slog to the end.
solitary's review against another edition
2.0
2.5 stars*
the underground man is as he described himself, an “acutely conscious” man who’s extremely self-aware. he notes multiple times how the reader must be laughing at his musings throughout the chapters. he also contradicts his words and shows masochistic tendencies. his great opposition to modern society is amusing as it is thought-provoking. it actually scared me every time i came across a passage and thought, “i mean, he has a point.”
the first part of the novella shows the psychological complexity of the character with depth and awareness that was previously less tackled in the preceding literature. the second part solidifies the underground man being an unreliable narrator, with his views and opinions mostly coming from contempt. he’s a remarkably horrible character, but i believe that he’s a characterization of what humans can be when brought upon by an extent of societal problems. we are not the underground man, but the underground man can come from any of us.
this is my first russian literature and to be honest, i was only able to pick up a few things from the book itself and found the literary analyses more enthralling than the narration of the underground man. you can only accept so much from an angry man full of bs.
the underground man is as he described himself, an “acutely conscious” man who’s extremely self-aware. he notes multiple times how the reader must be laughing at his musings throughout the chapters. he also contradicts his words and shows masochistic tendencies. his great opposition to modern society is amusing as it is thought-provoking. it actually scared me every time i came across a passage and thought, “i mean, he has a point.”
the first part of the novella shows the psychological complexity of the character with depth and awareness that was previously less tackled in the preceding literature. the second part solidifies the underground man being an unreliable narrator, with his views and opinions mostly coming from contempt. he’s a remarkably horrible character, but i believe that he’s a characterization of what humans can be when brought upon by an extent of societal problems. we are not the underground man, but the underground man can come from any of us.
this is my first russian literature and to be honest, i was only able to pick up a few things from the book itself and found the literary analyses more enthralling than the narration of the underground man. you can only accept so much from an angry man full of bs.
annacrouse's review against another edition
4.0
First time listening to an audiobook without reading the book alongside. I would've enjoyed it better if I just read it myself though.
alisarae's review against another edition
5.0
Going into this book I had a vague idea that it was about Dostoevsky's time in prison, or being politically persecuted... or something to that nature. I was so surprised that it is totally not about that, and still just as good as I had hoped.
I was completely blown away by the opening discussion on how algorithms will fail to accurately predict human behavior because they will not take into account that humans will act against their better interests out of spite for being called predictable. Take that, The Man! Lol. While I knew that scientific ideas had strong circulation in the 19th century (Frankenstein, etc), I had not thought about how refined the discussion could be, such that 150 years later Dostoevsky's argument is even more relevant now than it was during his time.
The second part is a day in the life of the narrator that kind of illustrates the anti-algorithm argument. The narrator is an antihero (he makes a coy meta reference to this at the end of the book): a man who has no friends because he refuses to play along by society's rules and thinks himself more intelligent because of it, who would be pitiable except he is so self-aggrandizing, who recognizes that the source of his mysogyny is his own self-hatred and self-loathing. In other words, the narrator is a portrait of chan internet.
A few days ago I read Max Read's analysis of the new David Fincher movie The Killer (maxread.substack.com/p/david-finchers-new-movie-the-killer) and his article describes the Loser Internet's ideal man, the "sigma male." So that description was fresh in my mind when I was reading Notes from Underground and I found the overlap between the two quite stunning. The Max Read article explains a brief history of the sigma male and how to recognize its characteristics, but if you want to deeply understand the psychology of why trolls reject society and hate women and idealize the sigma male, you will not find a better explanation than in Notes from Underground.
(PS Now that I think about it, I think the audiobook narrator I listened to also narrated Lolita? Interesting juxtaposition.)
I was completely blown away by the opening discussion on how algorithms will fail to accurately predict human behavior because they will not take into account that humans will act against their better interests out of spite for being called predictable. Take that, The Man! Lol. While I knew that scientific ideas had strong circulation in the 19th century (Frankenstein, etc), I had not thought about how refined the discussion could be, such that 150 years later Dostoevsky's argument is even more relevant now than it was during his time.
The second part is a day in the life of the narrator that kind of illustrates the anti-algorithm argument. The narrator is an antihero (he makes a coy meta reference to this at the end of the book): a man who has no friends because he refuses to play along by society's rules and thinks himself more intelligent because of it, who would be pitiable except he is so self-aggrandizing, who recognizes that the source of his mysogyny is his own self-hatred and self-loathing. In other words, the narrator is a portrait of chan internet.
A few days ago I read Max Read's analysis of the new David Fincher movie The Killer (maxread.substack.com/p/david-finchers-new-movie-the-killer) and his article describes the Loser Internet's ideal man, the "sigma male." So that description was fresh in my mind when I was reading Notes from Underground and I found the overlap between the two quite stunning. The Max Read article explains a brief history of the sigma male and how to recognize its characteristics, but if you want to deeply understand the psychology of why trolls reject society and hate women and idealize the sigma male, you will not find a better explanation than in Notes from Underground.
(PS Now that I think about it, I think the audiobook narrator I listened to also narrated Lolita? Interesting juxtaposition.)
savannah_lawl's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75