"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' Is it so bad to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."
--"Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson
How would the narrator of our text feel about this Emerson quote?
or
Is our narrator misunderstood--and thus, is he great?
or
....
See you tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Alright, I’m going to answer this steam of conscious style.
Everyone is misunderstood to some degree. It’s impossible to fully understand anyone, even the people you’ve known for years and talk to everyday. Humans (most humans, at least) are not simple enough to be understood and often, people don’t even understand themselves. I mean, it’s common for people to perceive themselves as something they’re not, in this way, misunderstanding themselves. For example, tons of teenage girls perceive themselves as peace-loving-protesters. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about…those girls that clad themselves in peace-sign shirts and tend to do the peace sign in pictures, but most (with exceptions) are just doing it because the peace-sign is a social trend. They decided to jump on board the peace-train, not actually knowing where it’s heading….What I’m trying to say is that being misunderstood applies to everyone, so it’s not enough to distinguish those who are deemed great, from the rest of the crowd.
What does makes someone great is the fact that they pursue what makes them different; they chase after what makes them misunderstood, instead of hiding it and giving in to conformity. They go against the natural grains of society, which gives them their greatness. Everyone that I admire has this quality, from my favorite musicians, authors, and just people in my life that I respect. To use Emerson’s examples, Socrates, Jesus, Galileo and Newton, all pursued their own unique talents and weren’t afraid to share them with the world. Most of their ideas weren’t initially accepted because they were so radically different, and it takes courage in order to throw your ideas out there, making them vulnerable to criticism. Greatness requires a certain strength to lift yourself from fear of people’s judgments, and show the world what makes you misunderstood. It’s easy to be misunderstood (everyone is), but it’s much harder to pursue and reveal to others what actually makes you misunderstood , to share those qualities that differentiate you from the person sitting next to you.
So..to answer the question, if the narrator is great. I would have to say no, because he is bounded by fear. This leads him to sink into oblivion, the underground world, which is an escape from reality. There’s no honor in that. He’s only hiding, and he is just as much a slave to his mind as everyone else is to society. People who are great are not bounded by this fear and don’t hide like the underground man, but stand up. They are able to convert their thoughts into action, to break through the wall which separates the two, not letting their talent remain dormant in their heads.
In response to Greta's post: In response to Greta's post:
I don't necessarily think everyone is misunderstood to some degree. There are people who understand me perfectly. In fact, just today I was talking with someone and we were discussing how when you become close to someone those people know you so well and it gets to the point where when you are fighting with them they know what to say to hurt you even more, break you down and win the argument. I think it's very rare that people understand you perfectly, but I think there are times where you find someone that just gets you.
However, I do agree with you 100% about the idea that there are tons of people who are misunderstood so you can't say all people who are misunderstood are great. I also love your example because I know exactly what you are talking about. This may be contradicting myself but as said in class I guess we are allowed to do that now. I also agree with Greta's definition of what makes someone great but I think there's more than putting ideas out there to being great. In a way, I think the idea of greatness varies from person to person. Who knows maybe someone could read this and be like "Wow, this guy is amazing, he is great." I personally don't think so but you never know.
I think our narrator isn't great at all. I don't even think he's really misunderstood. I think he doesn't give himself the opportunity to be misunderstood. He hides out in his house and when he leaves and doesn't even make an effort to reach out to people. I think he does this because he's afraid he might be misunderstood but he never really takes the chance to find out. For all he knows, he could be the most popular guy on the block with all the ladies but he'd never know because he never took that step to let people see "him" and get to know him. When he goes out to dinner with the guys, he simply criticizes them (I mean yes, they did come an hour late so he does have some right to be mad) and if he had acted like a normal person maybe they would have liked him.
Part of this relates to how I feel about the end. We've spent so much time talking about man of thought vs. man of action and I was just hoping the end our narrator would break the walls and become that man of action but he doesn't. He runs outside to go find Liza but then he turns back. There's that moment where I thought he was going to do it and there would be closure and hope to the book. It would give us all hope that we can break through our "walls" and become those men (or women) of action. He preaches for so long about it but he never does which just makes us think if the guy who is preaching this can't do it how are we suppose to and how are we suppose to believe we can.
Okay, I think I've rambled enough for one post. Bye
I totally agree with Greta’s statement that those who are great are those who pursue what makes them misunderstood. As I thought about the way in which Dostoyevsky is misunderstood I realized that it is not him who is misunderstood. I think that the way the narrator lays things out, the way that explains and rationalizes is confusing. He uses contradictions and finds odd ways to express himself as a unique character. However, while reading this story I could not help but think of him as an anthropologist. Through his stream of consciousness he makes assumptions, accusations, and predictions about human nature. Most of the time, his comments either sound familiar to me in terms of my life, or actually end up being strangely true. The fact that I think he understands human nature very well is frustrating because no matter how much we want him to fit into the society he is stuck in, his minds keeps him from doing so. This wall that he has created in his head is preventing him from doing what he recognizes as normal, doing rational and ‘human’ things. Thus, he is creating his own misunderstanding. I think this makes a lot of sense. If in his own right mind he has trouble explaining and admitting who he is, and controls so strictly his thoughts, why or how would he enable himself to be understood? I don’t think this makes him great, I think this makes him very much like the rest of us. As Greta explained in her entry, none of us can be fully understood. As his vices are shown in the extreme, I think the narrator serves as a universal example of common misunderstanding. Through this character Dostoyevsky is able to address his problems and allude to a solution, which is writing. This story seems like one that is meant show one their own strengths, weaknesses, and indicate that misunderstanding is more than common, and in no way possible will some thoughts be understood by anybody but yourself. Along with human nature and suffering, I think Dostoyevsky is striving here to include misunderstanding into the list of things that connect us. In an honorable way I think the narrator has made his points, and although I do not find him to be ‘great’ because of it, does not negate the success caused by his constant irrational writing. His attempts to confuse and complicate the minds of his readers however do not make him eligible to be defined as successful or great. To me the narrator is universal, a person who is just trying to explain those intricate and frustrating elements of life that connect all of us in the world, but just happened to do it in the most complicated way.
I agree with Greta. I think that to some degree people are all misunderstood. People are super complicated and to understand everyone would be impossible. You would have to have some obnoxious super power to do this. An example of this is simply talking online. When you talk to a friend online they may say something sarcastically but because you aren’t hearing a voice or seeing an expression you are simply seeing words you can misunderstand the statement.
I don’t think that the author is great at all. Other then the fact that he complains constantly, he burry’s his fears and doesn’t consult them. I see the narrator as a coward. I think that the wall that he portrays is like a mirage. Its there in his mind but its not really there. I think that if the author was great he wouldn’t dread in his uneventful life but he would do something to change it. At the end of the book I was disappointed with him because he didn’t make any progress. He’s still the same man and this wall is like a security blanket that he needed when he was younger but its time for him to part with it. I don’t think that he’s great and I don’t give him any sympathy for what he’s going through. I think that he could be a great with effort but he seems to put more effort in being lame then he does in making himself more socially accepted.
I think that the thing about Dostoyevsky is that he definitely is misunderstood and always contradicting himself. His personality easily fits into that quote, at least in his notes from the underground. Not only is he misunderstood, or he thinks he is misunderstood, but he contradicts himself all the time, and then pre occupies himself with the shadow on the wall… his small revenges that overtake him and although they are ever so insignificant, they bring out such anger and passion to pre occupy him… the incident where the officer moves him aside is one because it is something a non-thinker would probably forget about after a while, let alone two years.
However, although Dostoyevsky fits this description, I do not think he would agree. At first he would say he does, but in the end his pride and vanity would cause him to contradict himself and say that to be great, society must understand you… you must be a man of action…
In this sense, this is probably what I would agree with, because good writing is something that everyone can really relate to… it draws on emotions and that is what makes it great. I felt as if I could relate to certain parts of Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground", however misunderstood other parts were at first. However if his purpose was to be misunderstood, and he conveyed that feeling in his work, is it not universally understood that he is misunderstood? Therefore, understanding can rise from misunderstanding.
At the same time, I can also agree with people's views, like Greta's. We are all indeed misunderstood. Although at times, like Sasha said, there are people we feel can understand us perfectly, but that is only a point in time… and some feelings will always be secret; hidden, because we cannot ever enter another persons mind. We are forever truly alone, no matter how much we think we understand one another. Yet we long for communication and relationships with others… perhaps in being misunderstood there is understanding, yet perhaps within understanding, there is misunderstanding.
I decided to write on the "..." option! This is really long, but at the end of it I'm pretty happy with how it came out.
A great album can change the way you listen to music. A great film can change the way you view the world. A great book can change the way you read and comprehend. Now that those three things are out in the open: I have discovered albums that have caused me to completely re-think my life and my actions. Albums have altered the way I listen, the sounds I hear, and the way I interpret. I have seen films that have changed the way that I view the world around me and that have taught me to find beauty in everything that I see. But I can only name a few books that have even slightly changed the workings of my mind. It is obviously a slanted figure, because I consume more music and am more interested in music, but it is still puzzling to me why I have never been able to connect with the words on a page as much as the sounds of a song. I have a collection of thousands of songs, I have seen hundreds of movies, and I have read hundreds of books for school alone. If you were to ask me to name some works from each category that have changed me, I could name at least one hundred albums that have changed my life in some way. I could name about twenty five films. But I would not even know where I would begin in the book category.
I have always been a person who has been searching for a concrete answer to everything, gravitating towards a Math or Science class over an English. But that has all begun to shift. I have begun to explore.
So nothing I said in these last two paragraphs was of significant importance to what I am trying to accomplish with this entry. Like Dostoyevsky, I tend to ramble when writing on an open-ended or philosophical question. But like I said before, I am someone who is searching for a concrete answer. When the discussion of the afterlife comes up, everyone discusses different beliefs and ideas. I'm left with a bunch of words and ideas on my paper that do not connect and add up to something. Everyone leaves class seemingly satisfied, but I want to find that "something". I do not quite know what I am looking for. A great album or film creates a spark in my head that sets in motion some mental shift. In an instant I understand exactly what that artist or director is trying to give to me and I receive it with open arms and am forever bettered by it. I have never been able to achieve this feeling through I book or in a classroom.
In "Notes from Underground", I know theres a point that Dostoyevski is trying to give to me. Mr.K said there was no definitive conclusion, no final connection of the novel, but I know there is. There has to be. I can just feel it. There are themes, motifs, and symbols, but those exist in all novels and all they amount to for me are points on a test or a paper. I have been sucked in by his writing. Despite the contradictions and circles of thought, I have followed them all and absorbed them. I can not find the ultimate connection that I am searching for, I do not know how to.
The narrator has a disease, the disease of thought. He possesses a severe problem with social skills and the ability to relate to other people. Throughout the novel he is constantly trying to break through his "wall", this barrier between him and the people like Zverkov. The second half of the novel contains episodes of the narrators social interaction with others. The struggle to break through this wall is written and he has a mental battle with himself during every one of these episodes. But something happens in the end that is different, it is the conclusion that the reader seeks. When Liza leaves his apartment, he suddenly begins to run without even thinking about it. He leaps over his wall and continues going. He would have never done this in the earlier episodes. He is driven by love and a connection that he felt with Liza that he has never felt with anyone else before. "And why was I running after her? Why? To fall in front of her, burst into repentant sobs, kiss her feet and beg for forgiveness. That was what I wanted; my heart was torn, and never, never, can I remember that moment with indifference."(121) He finally has overcome the wall and even though the story does not continue, one believes that there will be a continuing difference in his social interactions.
Dostoyevsky then lifts himself from "Story of the Falling Sleet" and connects back to part one of "Notes from Underground" and ends with a quote that really interests me. "After all, to tell a long story about how I missed life through decaying morally in a corner, not having sufficient means, losing the habit of living, and carefully cultivating my anger underground -- really is not interesting; a novel needs a hero, but here all the features of an anti-hero have purposely been collected, and most of all the whole thing produces a bad impression, because we have all got out of the habit of living, we are all in a greater or less degree crippled."(122) To me this passage brings together the two parts of the novel and gives the reader a conclusion and a point to the story. In order to experience the connection to Dostoyevski's writing that I am searching for. I need to continue to discuss this book and specifically the idea of the anti-hero and its relation to society. I need to live in the shoes of the anti-hero and understand the narrators deficiency. I need to relate to the words in "Notes from Underground" in the same way that I would relate to the lyrics of a song. I have found the answer to the question that I posed at the end of paragraph four. I have found my method to relate, but I still seek the ultimate connection.
I think that the narrator of our text, if exposed to these words, would not argue or criticize for once! Emerson states, “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.” This quote supports one of the most prevalent themes from Notes from Underground, the idea of contradiction. The narrator, all throughout the story, contradicts himself in an effort to avoid conforming to the normality of society. In his chaotic rants, the reader loses the importance of what the narrator is trying to stress. This is one reason why the narrator is so difficult to relate to. We write him off, too quickly, as a troubled person (which he is to some degree) because he is willing to go against what is known. However, this is one passage that I followed quite well and agreed with. “And in particular it maybe the greatest of all benefits even when it does us obvious harm and contradicts our reason’s soundest conclusions on the subject of what is beneficial- because it does at any rate preserve what is dear and extremely important to us, that is our personality and our individuality.” The narrator understands that if we are to follow a certain formula, there is no hope for our individuality or personality. He believes that contradiction can only help us break from the chains of “normal”, which we are bound to. However, this leads to being viewed as ignorant or misunderstood.
Part of our problem, as human beings, is that we do not always take pride in being different. We are uncomfortable at the thought of being misunderstood. We are surrounded by close-mindedness. The media, society, you name it! “We even find it difficult to be human beings, men with real flesh and blood of our own; we are ashamed of it, we think it is a disgrace, and we are always striving to be some unprecedented kind of generalized human being. For fear of being a social pariah, people would rather choose to fall back in line as the rest do. Society does not usually welcome the unknown with open arms. Instead of being embraced for one’s own individuality and personality, too often, backs are turned to the dissimilar and those who take chances, are left misunderstood.
I think there are different levels of being "misunderstood". When talking about humans as a whole there is definitely a certain level where everyone is not understood, but this does not necessarily cause society to be completely misunderstood. I feel the word "misunderstood" usually carries with it a negative vibe, therefore causing those who deviate from the norm to be misunderstood and not completely rejected within society but they are frowned upon.
Jesus, Luther, Galileo, etc. were not just accepted within society. Yes, they had their followers, but what made them names to remember is that they deviated from the norm and challenged the society of their day. They worked beyond the accepted to create a whole new possible way of life. This ties back with what Greta said about those who pursue what they are misunderstood are the ones who come out great in the end. Individuals may have their moments where people wonder what the heck they are doing, but the normal person within society will feel that pressure and re-conform into society with time. It's those who refuse to re-conform that leave their mark on history and those around them.
I believe our narrator has the possibility to be great but isn't quite there yet. He definitely has misunderstood qualities about him, and is acting upon those by writing, although he has yet to really gain a set of followers to carry on his message which made him understood in the first place. Leading to another point, if one is to be great, there has to be a group of people that consider them great. A person can not just deem themself great and that's that. They are put there by what society feels, by what others think of their work. If our narrator is to be great in the end, he would have to amount some mass of followers... unless there's some secret underground society I have yet to hear of. He needs the extra step of those followers to perceive him as great to then be classified as such.
To be misunderstood, even to be despised; this is something. Is that what is not at the true core of what it means to be misunderstood? If you are someone who is misunderstood it means that what you do or what you say and what you think makes people uncomfortable, even a bit intimidated.
When someone chooses to look beyond the wall and see that it is truly much better than being stuck with the drones of society, where conformity is shoved down your throat.
Is someone who challeges what is real and what is normal, does this give him the venue of thinking to be able to do something great?
This must be true, the percent of extraordinary that comes out of ordinary is miserably bleek.
For one who is unique able to look beyond his heretitary fog and be able to see that not everything around him is as it should be. He critiques the flaws ofm his spcial backround, the scene that he is forced to live in every day.
When someone who is misundertstood suddenyly becomes undertstood, this is when the dilution of something special begins. Your once great thought, your one great action. Stripped of anything that was once beautiful about it. Your thought your ideas plaster on iron on t-shirts, being sold by some punk that never even knew who the hell you were, they only care that they get to go smoke a friggin'ciggarette in 5 minutes.
(Im mostly talking about che guevera)
The fact that our society seems to be trained to demiolish and drag down every important social movement of the last 200 years makes me sick.
Yet if it werent for that bloodsucking hypocritical society, would we have been able to have those thoughts that confused so many in the beggining?
In order for you to see beyond the wall,the wall has to be there in the first place.
To be misunderstood, even to be despised; this is something. Is that what is not at the true core of what it means to be misunderstood? If you are someone who is misunderstood it means that what you do or what you say and what you think makes people uncomfortable, even a bit intimidated.
When someone chooses to look beyond the wall and see that it is truly much better than being stuck with the drones of society, where conformity is shoved down your throat.
Is someone who challeges what is real and what is normal, does this give him the venue of thinking to be able to do something great?
This must be true, the percent of extraordinary that comes out of ordinary is miserably bleek.
For one who is unique able to look beyond his heretitary fog and be able to see that not everything around him is as it should be. He critiques the flaws ofm his spcial backround, the scene that he is forced to live in every day.
When someone who is misundertstood suddenyly becomes undertstood, this is when the dilution of something special begins. Your once great thought, your one great action. Stripped of anything that was once beautiful about it. Your thought your ideas plaster on iron on t-shirts, being sold by some punk that never even knew who the hell you were, they only care that they get to go smoke a friggin'ciggarette in 5 minutes.
(Im mostly talking about che guevera)
The fact that our society seems to be trained to demiolish and drag down every important social movement of the last 200 years makes me sick.
Yet if it werent for that bloodsucking hypocritical society, would we have been able to have those thoughts that confused so many in the beggining?
In order for you to see beyond the wall,the wall has to be there in the first place.
I’m not sure if we’re allowed to post on old questions, but I liked this one, so I’m taking it.
All of it, in fact, 1 2 and the infinite 3, decisions kill possibilities.
The narrator might indeed agree with Emerson, defending his contradictions and inconsistencies with the idea of a changing heart. Our narrator might also throw out the idea completely, I imagine that depending on his fickle mood of the moment the narrator might condemn Emerson and stoutly claim that he never indeed did change his own opinions. Also the narrator’s contradictions are not all stemmed from a change of experience, some seem to be a simple reaction to the narrators self awareness. He changes many statements for the sake of pleasing those “gentleman” with whom he speaks. Maybe he isn’t so contradictory at heart, due to his unreliability it is hard to decipher his true opinions.
The narrator would indeed agree with the second half of the quote. He believes that those very things which cause his separation and seclusion from society to be what is great about him. His superior intelligence causes him to be misunderstood and therefor great. Perhaps this is slightly bull, and it is simply a coincidence that great men are misunderstood and not necessisarily deductible that every contradictory fool is indeed great?
Also Dostoyevsky might not have been friends with Emmerson, as the author casts away his narrator on the very first page of the book, claiming all of the thoughts and ideas to be existent, just not in his head. I think this may show a bit of cowardice, maybe Dostoyevsky is hiding behind the assumed fiction of his novel to hide the contradiction of his own thoughts. In that case he may have felt flattered by Emerson’s words, or perhaps accused. What man really wants to admit that he is contradictory?
Post a Comment