Discussion Questions

He declares himself wicked and, in the very next paragraph, says that he lied and never managed to be it. What does the first gesture guarantee him that the second does not undo?

He says that the pleasure came from perceiving his own humiliation with clarity and from knowing that there is no way out. What would he lose if that clarity led him to change?

The mouse considers itself a mouse without anyone asking it to, and the narrator calls this an important point. What does the narrator gain when he is the one who humbles himself first?

The man of action yields to the wall with sincerity, and the narrator says he envies him. What would he want for himself in that man's position, and what does he refuse to accept?

The patient groans knowing that the family already hears him with disgust and does not believe him. What does the groan still give him, if no one believes him anymore?

The narrator says that the man of action takes revenge because he sees justice in it, and that he sees no justice at all. What does the absence of this first cause take from him, besides revenge?

He envies the lazy man because the lazy man would have a positive definition and could respect himself. Why does he not accept the definition of chatterbox that he gave himself in the previous chapter?

The friend sets out clearly what reason commands and, fifteen minutes later, does the opposite, moved by something inside him stronger than his interests. What does this something have that differs from an ordinary advantage, to the point of staying outside the lists?

The narrator defends independent will whatever the price and wherever it may lead. If it brings harm, what makes it worth it to him?

The narrator says that the right to will the foolish is worth more than advantage. Is this right freedom, or is it the negation of freedom under another name?

The narrator says that man, if they prove to him that he is a piano key, will do the opposite, just to insist on himself. Does this act show that he is free, or only that he reacts to what was said to him?

If too much consciousness is a disease, as he said at the start, why, according to him, would man not trade it for any satisfaction?

According to the narrator, man seeks twice two is four and fears finding it. Why is the search bearable and the result not?

He would accept the henhouse to escape the rain, but would not call it a palace. What would the title of palace add to the shelter, and why does he refuse it?

He asks to be shown something better than the palace, and says he would follow. What does this condition allow him to go on refusing?

He admits having invented the interlocutor's lines. Does this weaken or strengthen what he argued before?

Over eleven chapters he rejects the table, the advantage, and the crystal palace, and at the end he says he does not believe what he wrote. Which weighs more for the reader: the refusal, or the retraction?

He says he wants to check whether a man can be frank at least with himself. Does Part One answer this question, or does it leave it open?

The collision on Nevsky Prospect costs the underground man much preparation, a loan, and a withdrawal on the eve, and the officer goes on without looking back. In what sense, for him, did the revenge happen?

The underground man says there was no middle ground between hero and mud, and that this is what ruined him. What does this rule allow him to do, and what does it prevent him from doing?

The underground man knows, even before leaving home, that he does not want to defeat his colleagues or be liked by them, and yet he goes to the dinner. What does the text show him seeking there?

Zverkov answers the request for forgiveness by saying the narrator cannot offend him, and minutes later the narrator resolves to slap him. What does the answer take from him, and what does the slap promise to give back?

On discovering the empty house, the underground man feels saved from death, even though he ran there swearing he would deliver the slap. What does this relief reveal about what he actually wanted from that night?

Liza answers his picture of the happy family by saying he talks as if from a book, and the underground man hears only the mockery. What does her remark say about what he has just done, and what does he fail to hear?

The underground man knows he speaks as if from a book and counts on that to move Liza, and the effect is her despair. What does the text show he expected from this scene, and what did he not expect?

The underground man refuses Apollon his wages to prove he can, and ends up sending for the police against himself. What does the chapter show that he needs Apollon for, in order to be what he wants to be?

Liza understands that the underground man is unhappy and embraces him, and he, lifting his head, feels the urge to dominate her. What does the text show her embrace asking of him, and what can he answer?

Liza leaves the five-ruble note on the table, and the underground man, who had not foreseen the gesture, runs after her and stops at the corner. Why does he run, and why does he stop?

The narrator closes his memoirs by saying that he carried to the extreme what readers do not carry even halfway. At what point does the text seem to prove him right, and at what point does it not?

The narrator declares himself wicked on the first page and, a few lines later, says he lied and never managed to be so. Does he define himself by his defect in order to be the first to name it, or is the defect the only trait he can sustain?

He says that suffering is the only cause of consciousness and that man would not trade it for any satisfaction. Does this hold for man in general, or does it only explain why he himself does not get cured?

He defends the right to want the foolish, the caprice, against calculated advantage. Is this will a form of freedom, or is it obedience that takes the form of refusing advice?

At the end of Part One he says he does not believe a word of what he has written and that he himself composed the accuser's speeches. What weighs more for the reader: the refusal that occupied eleven chapters, or the retraction that undoes it?

In each episode of Part Two the narrator rehearses the scene as if it came from a book, and performs it worse than the script. What does his lucidity change, if it accompanies everything and prevents nothing?

Liza says he talks as if from a book, understands that he is unhappy and embraces him, and leaves the note on the table. Which of these gestures did the narrator least expect, and what does that say about what he saw in her?

The narrator says he carried to the extreme what readers do not carry even halfway. At what point does the text grant him this, and at what point does he use the sentence to excuse himself from answering only for himself?

The censors cut the passage in which the man concluded in faith and in Christ. Is the book that has come down to us an exact psychological portrait, an argument without its conclusion, or both at once?