To answer this question, it is first important to establish a working definition of what we mean by “psychological realism.” Psychological realism is a literary convention by which the author details the psychological motivations and inner mentality of their characters and how these contribute to the decisions made by these characters. It is a style of writing that focuses just as heavily on the processes characters undergo in order to resolve internal, psychological conflicts as it does on as external narrative ones. In Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky uses psychological realism in order to make a more seamless transition between parts 1 and 2 of the book, thus making it difficult to provide a definitive argument as to whether the strategies of one part are more effective than those of the other.
In a very strict sense, the techniques Dostoevsky uses in part 2 would probably be a better expression of psychological realism. In this part the reader is given a (admittedly loose) narrative arc to follow while Dostoevsky still provides some psychological justification for the Underground Man’s actions. For example, in chapter 1 of part 2, the reader is treated to a story of the Underground Man’s extracurricular activities one night at a club. In the first place, Dostoevsky provides a straightforward narrative—bored from reading, the Underground Man leaves his dark corner (his home, which he often refers to as such) and passes by a tavern. Desiring a fight, he eventually decides he is not even worthy of one, so he simply decides to stand by a billiard table, blocking the way for an oncoming police officer. The officer pushes the Underground Man aside, seemingly without even taking notice of him. This is the straightforward narrative. In the second place, however, Dostoevsky also details the Underground Man’s internal exposition and psychological ambitions for what he is doing. The reason he wants to leave his home to travel to the tavern in the first place is because “I was overwhelmed with depression, too; I had a hysterical craving for incongruity and contrast, and so I took to vice.” Furthermore, he references his own failure to pick a fight at the tavern in connection with his internal turmoil:
I was not drunk—but what is one to do—depression will drive a man to such a pitch of hysteria. But nothing happened. It seemed that I was not even equal to being thrown out of the window and I went away without having my fight.
The Underground Man goes on throughout the rest of this chapter and chapter 2 by explaining his inner justification for pursuing the police officer for two years in order to exact his revenge—returning the favor by bumping into him at Nevsky. Although his state of mind and mental justifications are not as well fleshed out in these exchanges as they are in part 1, they do exist, which, I believe, makes part 2 I better at connecting the Underground Man’s psychology with his real-world behavior. Dostoevsky has not only explained the what of his character’s life story, but also the why, providing a balanced picture in order to express a psychologically realistic setting for the Underground Man.
It should be emphasized here that part 2 is only better in regard to the strictest interpretation of psychological realism. However, parts 1 and 2 are written in such a way as to make the events of the Underground Man’s life most clear only after considering his philosophic speculations in the first part. Why, for example, does the Underground Man crave “incongruity and contrast,” inspiring him to seek out a fight at the tavern in the first place? The answer for this comes mainly from part 1, when the Underground Man explains his deeper convictions regarding the nature of rationality and consciousness. Rational man, he argues, believes himself to be in possession of the most blessed state of nature, for perfect rationality and the expression of pure reason always promote man’s best interests. However, the Underground Man questions the validity of such a presupposition. Free will, including the ability to make individual choices that are perhaps not in one’s self-interest, is much closer to a man’s heart. He explains why, though modern philosophers claim that rationality has created a just and peaceful society, the modern age has seen more bloodshed and destructive tendencies than perhaps any previous epoch. The Underground Man, therefore, prefers individual choice over rationality, which he succinctly conveys when he says, “So, I suppose, this obstinacy and perversity were pleasanter to them [conscious men] than any advantage” (part 1, chapter 7). Men who are conscious of their own self-interest, the Underground Man argues, often take action that is directly opposed to it. This action is the most noble thing a man can possess precisely because it is his expression of his absolute freedom. Rational man, whom the Underground Man characterizes as invariably not conscious, acts in a mechanistic way, subject to the equations of social sciences more than to his own humanity. This is a reality which the Underground Man refuses to accept.
Thus, the reason why he desires “incongruity and contrast,” and the motivation for his seeking a fight, is precisely to engage in activity that is not rational, for the reasons I have just stated. Furthermore, consciousness—or the Underground Man’s openness to many different forms of behavior, and his consideration of all of their possible consequences—is a paralyzing thing. In part 1, he similarly discusses the disadvantages of being a conscious, non-rational person: “You know the direct, legitimate fruit of consciousness is inertia, that is, conscious sitting-with-the-hands-folded” (chapter 5). Consciousness leads to indecisiveness and self-doubt, which ultimately produces inactivity. This exposition further explains why the Underground Man, despite his inner desire for a fight, ultimately does not engage in one and why it takes him so long to exact his “revenge” against the police officer.
In sum, part 2 is a more objectively effective use of psychological realism. However, this proposition doesn’t really hold true when we consider Notes from Underground in its entirety. The events of the second part are directly supported and substantiated by the Underground Man’s philosophic musings in the first and are therefore directly beholden to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment