Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

I know it borders on blasphemous, but I'll say it anyway: Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground is an inconsistent, unbalanced work. I know, I know: it's celebrated, and acclaimed, and serves as a starting point of sorts for existentialism. But for me, the novella didn't hold together. At least part of this might be attributed to its structure: the first third of the book, which proceeds as a monologue, introduces a set of philosophies. These, in turn, are explored in the remainder of the novella, which functions as a more traditional work of fiction: with character, dialogue, and narrative arc. I will say that while the first portion of the novella frustrated me, the second section delivered a blow: a number of the concepts explored here are evocative not only of existentialism, but also of the fractured modernism which emerged around the First World War. Ideas of suffering, spite, and intellectualism dominate the final portion of Notes, and they read as an existentialist tract might: without action we are nothing and cannot generate meaning; and yet, with infinite freedom comes an inability to act. There are a number of powerful aphorisms from the latter stages of the book, and they will remain with me. But all told, I am not sure that this experiment hangs together entirely: without the first portion -- focused, rather heavy handedly on philosophy -- the novella still might have succeeded, and it would have done so without the scripted quality introduced during the first section. All of that said, it would be hard to beat a line like this: "You took your cowardice for prudence, and thus found consolation in self-deception."