nvrrrdie's reviews
52 reviews

Generational story, very emotional
The style is very poetic, which did not resonate so strongly with me but others may enjoy that style more than I did

Kurt Vonnegut is such a capable writer I wish he saw women as people. 

This one was interesting. A lot to ponder. Once again he has made a story where the male protagonist (and WW2 veteran) struggles with the deep irrationality of postwar American society. Something I would want to discuss is the implications of Frontierism as the bygone ideal of Americanness from which the wealthy opportunists made their fortunes and the era of usefulness that the victims of obscelescence have lost. This and his other books are about the loss of stature of working class white men and it's interesting to read how it holds up against the real thing which encompasses more broadly and deeply the roots of racial/colonial exploitation in America.

And can he ever write a woman without declaring how they are, unfailingly, stupid and otherwise either ugly or vain? As if one can't hold the same cynicism or frightened disillusionment to the same depth of experience as his intelligent protagonist men are shown to be able.

I thought some of these essays were interesting and insightful perspectives. I often appreciated the storytelling. FWIW some essays were occasionally not very subtle about American apologia or endorsements of neoliberalism however. Which is fine but worth considering since this is published by Penguin Random House.

attention span issue. might try again sometime 

I read the Norton Critical Reader with translation by Michael Katz.

As of writing this review I have not yet finished reading all of the (useful) added texts/criticisms appended to the novel. 

Essentially this novel is a response to the utopian ideals presented by rationalist philosophy as it began gaining cultural prominence in 19th ce Russia. Dostoevsky counters the utopian idea with the image of a man who is irrational.  The underground man is vain and obsessed with suffering and torments others while not gaining anything from such behaviour - particularly Liza, the unwitting witness of his shame and misery onto whom he unleashes his aggression. 

The perfect and deterministic rationalism that Notes responds to suggests that prosperity is the only advantageous quality for the improvement of mankind's condition. It will correlate to modernity and achievement. Notes questions this, asking whether suffering may not also have its advantage and whether people would actually behave in such a manner that rationalism suggests - this appears doubtful to Dostoevsky. 

There is also discussion of rationalism + determinism that I have difficulty summarizing right now. I don't know if I would consider this correct upon review but it may read as the anxiety of a culture that is no longer sure of free will and has to reckon for the first time with the suggestion of determinism. Although the novel may argue against it, I don't know if I find it particularly clear or compelling. I would prefer to turn to much later and more contemporary works on the subject for a more satisfying reply.

Overall I did find this of some interest especially because I do also prefer to reject utopias or the supposed linear growth and progress /achievement of civilization - I think those are mistaken and limited in perspective. My understanding of this novel is far from complete right now and I think I kind of get how it is trying to disrupt the questionable basis of the views of his contemporaries. But as for effectively driving that point home in part ii either it's beyond my grasp or it's just not quite there.


Chuckled a lot because I too am a indulgent hermetic freak who is deeply sick from my own consciousness (I think these qualities are important to note as how Dostoevsky intends to present his countermodel to the rational character) but like...... yikes man! glad I'm irrational but not THAT bad << joke but also he is horrible. as intended. 

I thought some of the included essays were very good. Some of her other points were not compelling at all. Eventually some of the essays in the collection were very repetitious which definitely bothered me. 

Overall I think this was a decent introduction to the Indian political realm. In the future I think I will pursue further reading with different authors. I thought her points on the topic nuclear weapons were excellent, nationalism was kind of good but caste could be better. But sure this is an informative place to begin and I look forward to learning more.

😬