How is the Narrator Notes from the Underground an Anti-Hero - Term Paper Example

Essay Question: What is an anti-hero, and how is the narrator s from the Underground an anti-hero? Introduction Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Notes from the Underground (1864/2008) comes across as a diary penned by a self-described “spiteful” and “unattractive” anonymous narrator (p. 7). The narrator’s own self-loathing characterized by self-alienation is so obvious, that he is often referred to by critics as the Underground Man (Frank 1961, p. 1). Yet this Underground Man is the central character of Dostoyevsky’s novel and represents a subversion of the typical courageous hero. In this regard, the Underground man is an anti-hero, since as a protagonist he not only challenges the typical literary version of a hero, but also challenges conventional thinking (Brombert 1999, p. 1). Antiheroism Cuddon and Preston (1998) describe the anti-hero as a “non-hero” since he comes across as the “antithesis of a hero” (p. 42). The traditional hero is demonstrative of heroism and is typically characterized as “dashing, strong, brave and resourceful” (Cuddon and Preston 1998, pp. 42-43). The antihero turns this protagonist around to such an extent that he manifests what appears to be “failure” (Cuddon and Preston 1998, p. 43). In other words, the antihero, unlike the hero is not known for his successes but rather for his negative traits (Matz 2004, p. 46). Grabes, Diller and Isernhagen (1983) point out that during much of the second half of the 1800s, a number of antiheros characterized by inactivity and withdrawal in either a physical or abstract way began to appear with remarkable frequency (p. 305). Matz (2004) explains that being an antihero however does not make the protagonist “unlikeable, uninteresting or absurd” (p. 46). In fact , Matz (2004) reminds that “there is real heroism in anti-heroism, in an unheoric world” (p. 46). The antihero in many ways represents truth and authenticity as he often challenges established conventions of modernity. In particular his inactivity or withdrawal speaks to his opposition to established social norms and political persuasions (Matz 2004). Antiheroism in Notes from the Underground In its historical context Notes from the Underground was written at a time when Russian writers were attempting to revive opposition to Reformation. These writers emphasized the ills of “separation, egotism and autonomy” that permeated much of 19th century Russia (Golstein 1998, p. 194). Russian writers were expressing the opinion that humanity was lacking in meaningful direction. In this regard, Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground is a representation of the hero who embodied separation but invariably fails, thus embodying the concept of anti-heroism (Golstein 1998, p. 194). According to Barnhart (2005) Dostoevsky’s antihero was not just an assault on existing socio-political thought and norm, but was also a parody of Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s 1863 What is to Be Done? Chernyshevsky suggested in this work that man was by nature possessed of reason and was naturally cooperative with mankind so that he only did what he wanted if it was consistent with peace and harmony. Societal unrest and human struggles only occurred when man was not rational in the sense of cooperation with others. Barnhart (2005) explains that Dostoevsky’s antihero in Notes from the Underground therefore emerges as a direct challenge to Chernyshevsky’s perception of the rational man. Barnhart (2005) therefore argues that Dostoevsky’s anti-hero is a representation of the man that acts “consciously against” his own “rational self-interest” and conveys that “the progress of science and civilization by no means guarantees a kinder and happier humanity” (p. 175). Dostoevsky’s antihero in Notes from the Underground is an expression of the belief that man only needs unabated free will which he can pursue with unbridled fear regardless of the outcome (Barnhart 2005). Dostoevsky’s antihero in Notes from the Underground man is resistant to conformity and will inevitably pursue his dreams regardless of how irrational or impossible it may be. The rational man as described by Chernyshevsky is entirely unrealistic and fails to capture the more complex side of human nature. Therefore, Dostoevsky’s antihero is an expression of opposition to Chernyshevsky’s depiction of the rational man who by all accounts characterizes the conventional hero (Barnhart 2005). The antihero in Notes from the Underground is demonstrated by virtue of his having freely chosen a brash philosophy and his the self-alienation that is a natural result of his own philosophy. The antihero has persuaded himself that suffering is an inescapable and necessary part of life. He believes that all actions must be justified and since he cannot justify actions he has settled on inactivity. His other philosophical concepts dictate that intelligent and intellectual men are doomed for failure and that freedom of will is the most important thing a man can possess (Dostoevsky 1864/2008). The philosophy that an intelligent man will never amount to anything is expressed as follows: Now, I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything (Dostoevsky 1864/2008, p. 8). The narrator not only acknowledges his philosophy that an intelligent man is doomed to become nothing, but also that he is resigned to this fact and has paved out his own space in this realization. The narrator further rationalizes his self-alienation by remonstrating that a 19th century man is required to be “a characterless creature” and “a man of character, an active man is pre-eminently a limited creature” (Dostoevsky 1864/2008, p. 8). Thus, the Underground Man embraces his role as antihero and addresses the conventional hero who is represented as the “man of action and reason” (Trilling 1974, p. 202). The conventional hero loves and subscribes “the sublime and the beautiful”(Dostoevsky 1864/2008, p. 22). Yet these heroes do not have as much life as the anti-hero who is by his own choosing isolated in squalid conditions in his loft in St. Petersburg and is ill with a liver malady for which he refuses medical treatment (Dostoevsky 1864/2008, p. 22). The Underground Man’s choices and his right to look down upon the hero or the gentleman, is substantiated by his own experiences. He was once a civil servant and he had the ability to observe the absurdity of heroism in a world that does not support heroism. He was able to observe the plight of those requiring government service and the unsympathetic nature of those who delivered it. Although the Underground Man initially described his own treatment of those seeking civil service as entirely spiteful, he admits that he was lying when he admitted to taunting those citizen. The reality was that he was becoming aware of the fact that he could not be spiteful, that in fact: I did not know how to become anything; neither spiteful nor kind, neither a rascal nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect (Dostoevsky 1864/2008, p. 8). In other words, the Underground Man is a representation of the complex man who cannot find a place in the world as it is socially and politically structured. He does not live up to the idealization of mankind as prescribed by Chernyshevsky and has thus chosen to withdraw from society both physically and abstractly. In this regard he is an antihero who voices the resistance to conformity and refuses to be sculpted in a way that epitomizes the conventional hero. The Underground Man goes on to challenge the conventional hero by stating that: A novel needs a hero, and all the traits for an anti-hero are expressly gathered together here, and what matters most, it all produces an unpleasant impression, for we are all divorced from life, we are all cripples, every one of us, more or less. We are so divorced from it that we feel at once a sort of loathing for real life, and so cannot bear to be reminded of it (Dostoevsky 1864/2008, p. 118). In other words the dictates that prescribes the life and the desires of a hero are unrealistic and any attempt to achieve the idealized path of heroism is hard work. If man were to be honest he would have to admit that “real life an effort, almost as hard as work” and everyone would agree if they were honest that life is “better in books” (Dostoevsky 1864/2008, p. 118). In this regard, by not admitting this reality, we are all segregated from life. The Underground Man is an antihero because he at least recognizes this fact and embraces the mendacity of real life. Antiheroism in other Literature The Underground Man’s withdrawal from the world is paralleled by antihero in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man (1980). Both antiheros are narrating in confessional terms and both reflect some degree of humiliation and dissatisfaction with the realities of life and are to some extent driven underground. The Underground Man’s underground foray is more symbolic in that it is both literal and mental. The antihero of Ellison’s Invisible Man goes underground in the literal sense. He first retreats to a cellar while the race riots in Harlem are taking place, then he retreats to a basement and meditates (Ellison 1980). In both novels the antiheros represent a retreat from a world they find it impossible to conform to. The Invisible Man’s narrator is unable to conform to the dominant White culture and its prescriptions for the Negro American and the conventions of heroism. Likewise, the Underground Man resists the prescriptions for mankind and the conventions of heroism imported by the dominant culture from Western Europe (Frank 1990). The parallels between Dostoevsky’s Underground Man and George Orwell’s antihero Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-four are not as congruent as the parallels identified in Ellison’s Invisible Man and Notes from the Underground. Although Orwell’s Winston Smith exhibits the same antihero rebellious traits as Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, there are salient distinctions. Bloom (2007) argues that: Dostoevsky’s underground man and Orwell’s Winston Smith seem to occupy diametrically opposed position in the ideological spectrum (p. 56). In Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground, the antihero is resisting “the dictatorship of reason” pursuant to “irrational freedom” (Bloom 2007, p. 56). However, in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four, the anti-hero is resisting “against irrationalism” pursuant to “reason” (Bloom 2007, p. 56). Therefore, since Winston Smith epitomizes “Enlightenment,” it therefore follows that Underground Man epitomizes “the Counter-Enlightenment” (Bloom 2007, pp. 56-57). Despite the distinctive idealizations and philosophies that the protagonists revolt in Nineteen Eighty-four and Notes from the Underground, they are bound together by a common antiheroic theme: they both are resisting the current and dominant socio-political norms of the times. Conclusion Antiheroism in Notes from the Underground is an embodiment of the struggles of the modern man. These struggles are present whether they are realized or not. The Underground Man is an antihero because he realizes the struggles of modern man and Dostoevsky finds expression for this conceptualization in 19th century Russia. The Underground Man is able to accept the absurdity of modernity and the socio-political dictates that challenge the idealization of the conventional hero. Although Dostoevsky set out to satirize Chernyshevsky’s pro-utopian idealization of mankind, he presented a prototype of the anti-hero. Although vile and sick and somewhat disturbing the underlying message finds currency for those who resist the dominant socio-political norms. In many ways the antihero presented in the persona of the anonymous narrator emerges as the philosophical representation of existentialism. In this regard, the antihero is detached from everything but reality. That reality is the absurdity of heroism in an anti-heroic world. The influence of Dostoevsky’s antiheroism is influential enough to be repeated in later works such as those demonstrated by Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four (1949/2004) and Ellison’s Invisible Man. Bibliography Barnhard, Joe, E. Dostoevsky’s Polyphonic Talent. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2005. Bloom, Harold. George Orwell. New York, NY: Chelsea House, 2007. Brombert, Victor. In Praise of Antiheroes: Figures and Themes in Modern European Literature. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press, 1999. Cuddon, John Anthony and Preston, Claire. A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Notes from the Underground. Rockville, Maryland: Serenity Publishers, 2008. Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. New York, NY: Random House, 1980. Frank, Joseph. “Nihilism and “Notes From Underground”. The Sewanee Review, (Winter 1961) Vol. 69(1): 1-33. Frank, Joseph. Through the Russian Prism: Essays on Literature and Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. Golstein, V. Lermontov’s Narratives of Heroism. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1998. Grabes, Herbert; Diller, Hans-Jurgen and Isernhagen, Hartwig. Real: The Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature, Volume 5. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter and Co. 1983. Matz, Jesse. The Modern Novel: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Fairfield, IA: 1st World Library, 2004. Trilling, Lionell. “The Fate of Pleasure Wordsworth to Dostoevski.” Cited in Wimsatt, William Kurtz (Ed.). Literary Criticism—Idea and Act: The English Institute, 1939-1972: Selected Essays. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1974. Read More