Reader discussion: Notes from the Underground

Public reader discussion about Notes from the Underground in the WeRead Catalog by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky

By midnightTeacup

If you haven’t read *Notes from Underground* yet, I’d really suggest giving it a go. Yeah, it can feel pretty intense and kind of hard to get through sometimes, but I’d still say it’s worth pushing through. Honestly, I didn’t expect it to be as comforting or helpful as it was, and from my own experience it genuinely eased some of what I’ve been dealing with. Plus the whole set of philosophical questions it brings up is really thought-provoking, and there were moments where it honestly messed with me a bit (in a good way). If you’ve read it, what did you think?

Just finished Notes from the underground by Fiodor Dostoiévski

By library_looks53

Yeah, it honestly wasn’t what I expected at all. I thought I had a pretty good idea of what I was getting into, but nope—I was totally wrong. I’ll admit it was kinda hard to get through sometimes. The beginning felt slow and stretched out, and there were moments where it was just… boring. Like a massive, endless monologue. But around the middle, when the narrator starts opening up about his life and how he reacts to stuff, that’s when I felt like the book might actually go somewhere. Still, the way he overthinks even tiny things gets really painful to read. And his dinner speech? Cringey. Plus all the conversations where he just keeps going on and on with Liza were rough for me. I don’t even know what my final verdict is. I relate to the narrator in a lot of ways, and that’s actually what gets to me. Thinking about seeing parts of your own personality you normally hide show up in a book is weird—like it gives me chills. So… what do you think? I’d say 6.5/10. Also sorry if this isn’t super clear—English isn’t my first language.

Any advice on how to become more literate?

By Hidden-Cougar

Welcome to /r/literature, a place for talking more seriously about plays, poems, short stories, and novels. People can also discuss literary criticism, literary history, theory, and critical theory here. This isn’t /r/books, so please don’t use it to ask for book recs or homework help. Rules 1. Required for all posts: - Relevance: Posts need to be about literature, literary criticism, literary history, literary theory, or literary news. - Analysis: If you’re posting a discussion, you need to add your own thoughts in the body. - Content: Don’t post stuff that’s just a question and nothing else. 2. No homework or curriculum posts Don’t ask for help with homework (students) or curriculum stuff (teachers). That includes surveys too. 3. No book recommendation requests That includes asking about editions and translations. 4. No advertising or self-promo Don’t post ads or promote yourself in any way. That includes your writing, socials, Medium, YouTube, apps, or anything else tied to you. 5. No pics or memes Don’t post just image links. 6. No writing advice This isn’t a writing or authorship sub, so don’t ask for feedback or instruction on your writing. 7. No silly videos Don’t post videos that are only vaguely related to literature. 8. No spoilers Spoilers have to be marked and hidden with the spoiler tool. 9. No AI-generated content This is a literature sub. People should be doing their own writing, not using LLMs or similar tools for posts or comments. Sister Subreddits /r/literatures /r/AskLiteraryStudies /r/badliterarystudies /r/truelit Friends in the Arts /r/ArtsHub /r/audiobooksonyoutube /r/BookClub /r/Cinephiles /r/LitVideos /r/Poetry /r/ProsePorn /r/ShortStoriesCritique /r/Verse /r/WeirdLit /r/Writing - Check out /r/AskLiteraryStudies if you have questions about literature and literary studies that you'd like answered by experts! All are welcome.

Is Tolstoy an objectively inferior writer to Dostoevsky?

By stanza-bright73

This might come off like a dumb/troll question, but I honestly don’t get it. It feels like Dostoevsky is basically the one 19th-century author who never really gets hit with modern criticism. Like, all over the internet—everywhere from book discussions to random threads—you’ll see tons and tons of people treating stuff like *The Brothers Karamazov* or *Crime and Punishment* as the best books ever. Even on the boards that tend to be pretty contrarian, I’ve seen *TBK* ranked near the very top. But with Tolstoy, it’s the opposite. People constantly complain his books are melodramatic, slow/boring, kind of preachy, and packed with characters you don’t really like. And a lot of people seem more than happy to criticize Tolstoy himself for personal moral stuff or hypocrisy. That kind of backlash just doesn’t seem to happen for Dostoevsky. Anyway, I’ve read *TBK* and *Notes from the Underground*, plus Tolstoy’s big novels like *War and Peace* and *Anna Karenina* (and *The Death of Ivan Ilyich*). I still ended up preferring Tolstoy’s narration and his characters. Am I just being objectively unfair and missing something?

Who's your favorite writer and why

By BookmarkBookish65

Right now my favorite author is Dostoyevsky, and I honestly don’t know if I’ll ever find someone who can really mess with me like he does. I’ve read Notes from the Underground and The Idiot, and I keep getting blown away by how hard he hits. I’ll probably say more later, but I’ve gotta run for now. What about you—who’s your favorite writer and why?

Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky

By harmonyYoung

This is my first Dostoevsky too. As I was reading, I kept jotting down a bunch of questions because I don’t feel like I fully “get” what he’s saying, even when I think I’m close and then it slips away again. One thing that really threw me: at one point the narrator talks about how he started speaking just to test whether other people actually get some kind of pleasure from having too vivid a sense of their own humiliation. And then he’s basically saying that when you end up with that kind of self-awareness and accept who you are, it’s just part of how things are naturally supposed to work. But… do people really feel pleasure like that? Or is it more like only the underground man would feel it? He keeps trying to explain that “pleasure” in the first part, and I just couldn’t wrap my head around it. Also, in the second part, does he give any real examples of that exact kind of suffering he was talking about before? I couldn’t find the connection. I *do* understand other types of despair better—the kind where someone shares it with others. Like when he talks about toothache pain and wanting to spread that misery around. That part made sense to me when he gets humiliated by his friends and then pushes that same humiliation onto Liza. But again, I didn’t see examples for the earlier “humiliation-pleasure” idea in the second part. Another thing: he claims that when he does “inappropriate” stuff, he’s aware of what the opposites would be—like noble actions—and still he keeps going, until he ends up believing it’s just his normal state. But then he also says he’s not even an insect, so it feels contradictory. Does it actually contradict, or am I missing what he means there? And then there’s the whole “you are what you are” line tied to nature. What “laws” is he talking about? Are we the way we are because of what we’re made into, or because of free will and the choices we make? Because if it’s nature, then it seems like later he argues back about free will in a way that doesn’t quite match. Then he goes off on the whole utopia argument—no perfect society run on “guidance” can work because people are unpredictable and free will messes everything up. I get why Dostoevsky would tear that idea apart. But I kept thinking of another angle: if people can sabotage the utopia or walk away from it for freedom, doesn’t that also mean that in our real world—where things are worse and blood and suffering are already happening—we can still choose not to be monsters? Like, if we want, we can choose to be better and not just collapse into being scoundrels. Is that what Dostoevsky (not the underground man) is hinting at? And one more thought: does this argument also connect to that question Christians get—if God is all-powerful and merciful, why is there suffering? Is suffering there to make room for genuine free will? Anyway, I definitely feel like I didn’t grasp a lot on the first read. But I’m still really curious to see what I’ll pick up from his other books, because with this one I swear I keep thinking I’ve got it and then the meaning just slips again.

books to read if you are the underground man

By coastporch

If I were to recommend books to the guy from Notes From Underground, what would you suggest? I kept finding myself pretty much relating to him.

Just finished "Notes From The Underground" by Fyodor Dostoevsky

By Crimson_Saddle3913

I’ve been staring at this for a few minutes, trying to figure out how to put the whole book into words, like I’m gonna pitch it to some imaginary person… and I’m just not really able to. I really loved it, but I can’t say it in a way that sounds right. This was my first time reading Dostoevsky, and even though I know he has a reputation, I was still impressed. The opening part felt like it was basically staring right at the human condition. At times I even felt closer to the narrator than I usually do with anyone. I’m not the type to be spiteful for fun or anything, but the way the character feels existentially uncomfortable—plus how he moves through the world with these irrational thoughts that are weirdly familiar—hit me hard. Like, straight up punch-in-the-gut hard. One thing I didn’t expect: it’s kind of darkly funny. I haven’t read something that way since I was a kid, when I’d just dive in and read fast. Usually I hit this wall when I try to get into a book, like I can’t quite step into its world. With Notes from the Underground, that didn’t happen. I don’t really have some big insightful takeaway, honestly. It’s the first book I’ve finished in ages, and I actually enjoyed it, so I’m just happy I stuck with it.

My experience reading 'Notes From The Underground'

By BowlEagle

A few years back I bought *Notes From Underground* because I wanted to get into Dostoevsky, but it ended up being a really miserable experience. From the very beginning I felt like something was off—most of it didn’t make sense to me. I’d have to reread basically every line like 3–4 times and then just sit there for a few minutes trying to get what he meant. Even after all that, I’d only get a vague idea of what was going on. It was exhausting, and after more than 25 pages I still wasn’t enjoying it at all, so I quit. Then I gave it another shot three years later, thinking maybe I’d finally be “better” at reading and could appreciate it now. Nope. Same struggle all over again. I was still rereading lines over and over and taking forever just to piece together whatever felt weird. By the time I made it through just a handful of pages, an absurd amount of time had passed. I kept hoping it would click eventually, but it never did. I just couldn’t keep putting myself through that kind of grind, especially if I wasn’t even enjoying it, so I stopped after the 34th page.

What do you think, if anything, of No Longer Human? Do you think it deserves to be a major classic?

By wonder-listens579

I think it’s a pretty good book, but I don’t see it as some big classic. I did like the whole vibe with loneliness and all the stuff about failing and just feeling miserable. Also, I’ll admit I found it kind of funny in a weird way—the main guy is so pathetic that it ends up being funny to me. Do you think it’s actually humorous, or am I reading it wrong? What did you think of *No Longer Human*?

People who liked notes from the underground, may I ask why?

By looseFig4990

/r/Classicliterature is where people talk about and enjoy classic books and stuff—plays, poems, novels, short stories, the whole range. I guess you can post all kinds of discussions, like analysis or criticism, or even the history behind the work and the author, plus whatever social/political context was going on when it was written. Also, it’s got a related sub: /r/lickerish.

Notes from the Underground - Part 1 - Chapter 3 and Chapter 4

By Superuser

I can drop a few prompts we can use to start talking, but you don’t have to answer them if you don’t feel like it—go ahead and throw in your own thoughts and questions too. Chapter 3: 1. TUM gives that quick explanation about the two types of men—what did you think? 2. He keeps bringing up “the wall,” and how he seems to hate stuff like the laws of nature and arithmetic. How do you even live in the world while rejecting its basic rules? Is that really where most of his problems come from, and what makes him so “acutely conscious” in the end? Chapter 4: - The narrator says it’s kind of enjoyable to suffer and complain. Earlier he mentioned people basically brag about their diseases. Do you buy that?

Notes from the Underground

By prose-folio6

I’m fairly sure I’ve already got the answer, but I’m still not totally sure—what’s the best translation of Notes from the Underground?

Opinion on Dostoevsky

By BisonSky

First time posting, so sorry if this is confusing. I’d like to start some more critical discussion of Dostoevsky, because I really get why some people don’t like his style. Personally, I don’t feel moved by the more sentimental scenes, and a lot of his female characters seem kind of plain to me. And when it turns into philosophy, I mostly just end up bored with all the focus on suffering. That said, I do still like his books overall—I just found parts of TBK and pretty much all of The Idiot harder to get through. I guess his earlier work might be his strongest, and that feels more interesting to talk about. Curious to hear what others think.

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

By curiousBookmark

I’m only about halfway through, and I can’t tell if it’s just me or if this book is kind of hard to get through? I’m a college student, so I figured I’d be fine, but it gives me this older/archaic English vibe. Maybe it’s just the translation I picked, though? I’m trying to read it for fun, but it feels like there’s a lot happening all at once. And since I’m pretty visual, my brain won’t slow down—my mind is constantly racing. Does Dostoevsky usually write like this, or is this one just especially tough? Either way, I’m going to push through and then check out more of his stuff after (Crime and Punishment, Notes from Underground, The Idiot, etc.). Also—what do you all think about his writing? No spoilers please :) Update: wow, thank you to everyone who replied—really appreciate the thoughts. It’s also kind of reassuring to hear people still enjoy the classics, because it feels like a lot of kids today jump straight to YA/rom-com type books (not bad, just would be nice to see more variety) ☺️💘

understanding Notes From Underground by Dostoyevsky

By lampseal1983

Hey everyone. I just wrapped this up today, and it’s my third Dostoyevsky book—my order was C&P, Demons, (Notes), The Idiot, and now TBK. I’m not totally sure I “got” all the philosophy stuff, though. The first chunk (like the first 20 pages) really seems to push free will over rational thinking. There’s that whole idea about a world where everything is basically pre-set, but people still end up doing awful stuff just so they can prove they’re choosing for themselves—like they’re not just automatons. I know I don’t fully understand existentialism, but from what I’ve picked up, it kind of messes with strict logic and insists people have to make their own meaning instead of waiting for some neat explanation. (I might be mixing it up with logotherapy here, so feel free to correct me.) What I’m stuck on is how the main guy actually fits that. Early on he talks like he’s really on board with the whole thing, but then he kind of stalls out. He seems to reject a logical view of the world, but then he ends up overthinking everything, getting overwhelmed and kind of spiteful. That makes me wonder if the book is showing what happens when someone can’t figure out their place and just hides behind their own intellect. Like, it’s kind of a warning against intellectual arrogance. This might be a dumb question, but is he basically an anti-example of existentialist philosophy? Any clarification would be awesome. I’ve been swamped with college lately, so I didn’t sink into this one as hard as I did with Demons. Also shout out to all my fellow Mech E majors.

Notes From The Underground by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Part 1, Chapter 7. What are your thoughts?

By Superuser

This chapter felt a bit too close to real life for me, but it was also really good. I ended up rereading parts because I couldn’t get my head around it right away. I kept going word by word, like I needed to actually take it in. The ending is what really grabbed me. I was stuck on the whole “people think they know what’s best” vibe—like everyone assumes they’re choosing something rational and virtuous, but really they just want to be independent no matter what it costs or where it leads. And that last bit about the devil was kind of chilling. I actually caught myself making a small gasp, because I thought, yeah, “we all have devilish thoughts,” and some people manage them while others just let them run wild. Also, I don’t really buy the idea that mankind is “progressing.” It feels more like people are just confused and trying to convince themselves they’re free because they’re following whatever ideology is popular right now. They’ll do whatever they need to prove they’re superior, even if it hurts other people—or themselves. Then they end up feeling trapped by society anyway, especially since society keeps changing and can’t even be trusted. Anyway, I know there’s more I want to say, but I’m distracted trying to get through chapter eight now. What do you think?