what are the merits of this work? i can't say im impressed

>>9197957
Actually is the bible of edgy readers. But yes

>required reading to post on /r9k/
>merit

>>9197966
What?

File: descarga (1).jpg (8KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 183x275px

>>9197966
¿Someone called me?

>>9197967
>implying anyone on r9k has read anything since they dropped out of college freshman year

I mean, it should be, but there's no way it has.

>>9198040

Well I guess you don't really need to read about something you've lived after all

is anyone on this board capable of responding to the OP?

>>9198119
Me, but i don't want to do it

>>9197957
>i felt like the internal monologue of the character, the character, and the story, while well written, were not so revealing, enlightening, or entertaining in any way
>although perhaps it is because i found it so reletable and the thoughts and feelings not so atypical.
that's the point
>someone care to help me see?
it's a satire. the narrative of the Underground Man (you) is ironic. the examination of him(you) is not. NfU is like a mirror that reflects most r9k type's face at you, showing you the trajectory of your life. That's why the Underground Man is so old. he's you in the future.

read Crime and Punishment.

>>9198130
"Anyone here know how to seduce a woman?"

"Me, h-haha, I just don't want t-to"

>>9198135
How is the narrative ironic?

>>9198159
Dostoyevsky was using the unreliable narrator device to portray a message by expressing the opposite of that message. If he overtly stated "the Underground Man is a piece of shit, here's why" the reader would never feel inclined to empathize or even identify with him. Especially with that philosophical essay as the introduction, it all sounds so logical and effective and even familiar on paper. then we see it in his life, in action, and realize that his convoluted philosophy is actually a compensation for his social ineptitude and resentment. His philosophy is a defense mechanism. We begin to see this in ourselves, because a lot of what the underground man says really is true and we want to root for him and feel a little bit justified in ourselves and point the finger and blame others(Dosto doesn't let them off the hook) but we see that we are what's destroying our lives.
you really have to read C&P, it's much more comprehensive

>>9198259
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, this helped me appreciate the text more

https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/comments/5wq4u3/missing_post/dec58lc/

>>9198259

This anon is correct.

You have to realize that Dosto is a reactionary to the rise of nihilism and relativism and so he actively parodies Nietzchean (more accurately Schopenhauer) types. C&P is exactly what happens when someone takes it upon themselves to be an ubermensch. Dosto's flaw (imo) is that he sees the remedy to all of society's ills in an extremely simplistic light, explicitly Christian morality, which, after a time, more or less means that much of his work is an extended sermon.

That said, up until the point where he more or less explicitly says "ya'll need Jesus," the struggles for meaning and relevance in the world for his characters are a prototype for your modern internal struggle narratives in a meaningless world.

It's kind of like how Descartes is really interesting until he goes "lol God"

>>9199191
Except Dostoevsky thought that suffering was a core part of the human condition, which means Christianity wasn't necessarily a cure for society's ills but rather it allowed people to give their suffering some meaning and do something productive with it.

>>9199191
doesn't the Underground Man explicitly say his problems come from heightened consciousness? I read NfU before I knew much about Schopenhauer so I didn't pick up on that.

NfU is a unique book that I think really showcases the necessity for fiction. Its arguments would be far less compelling in Doestoyevsky's own words.