Underground Man

The Underground Man seems to be a bit inauthentic to me. Earlier in the book, he acts as if he is superior to everybody and we get the impression that he quite reclusive, seeing as how he has locked himself away in his home in St. Petersburg, with only his stenched maid for company and human (lack of)interaction. While he states these things about people and creating the illusion of being above culture and interaction he in fact isn't. Even from the very beginning of the story, underground man is quite self conscious. I remember in class we were discussing how he is ashamed of some of his qualities and tries to make them seem less applicable to himself than they actually are, or how underground man is quite self conscious of himself and tries to tailor things to the reader. But in this latest reading, I find that the actions he takes contradict this image he has created for himself. In my opinion, underground man's actions all derive from some sort of desire to be accepted or recognized. We see this with the prostitute or with the soldier. He is rebelling or anti-conformity for the sake of being different and not necessarily because these actions are what would be naturally instinctual for him.

Rooster Cogburn

Rooster Cogburn is the hero that we admire. He's the guy we want to be, but are afraid to become. We like his ruthlessness and his basic B.A. factor, but we also secretly admire the fact that he's a hero. Because he aids the good guys in the film we love him, but had he been the antagonist we would deplore the very same characteristics of Cogburn that we love in him now. After our initial meetings with Rooster, we see that he is most certainly not afraid to inflict a little kick ass on a convict or two, but we also get a glimpse into a softer side of Rooster. When Cogburn states that he killed all of those men because he had to, we believe him. And because he was forced to kill, we are admire and praise him all the more. I know that he'll come off as a villain at times, and will most likely have conflicting views with Mattie, but ultimately the good guys will win, Rooster and Mattie both will have transformed or evolved some how, and Rooster will go off and do something that might seem bad at the moment, but will ultimately end up being a great deed later on after it's initially completed.

Notes From Underground

The underground man is this constantly pondering man of inaction. He resides with his distinctly odorous servant around the Russian city of St. Pertersburg. Quite critical in nature, there is hardly anything I can find that he does in fact enjoy or respect. He does not even like himself completely, or at least he is ashamed of some of his qualities. I understand this to be true due to the part in the story when the underground man exhibits some sort of a caring tendency or nature, but is quick to detour he reader from this into again, a more critical view or opinion on said topic. At first glance, one would assume the underground man is an egomaniac, but I believe him to be quite insecure about himself and longs for positive recognition and acceptance. Underground man is always referring directly to the reader and I am positive he is trying to make himself seem more sane and omniscient to a more skeptical or less understanding reader. I like underground man. I like him a lot. Dostoyevsky, I mean Underground man, is somebody I agree with and can relate to, as pretentious as that sounds. I do agree with a lot, not all, but many of his observations, especially the ones that we would classify as wrong or "bad", but we know are true, but we're just to afraid to articulate and make real.

Conclusion of Othello

Often enough in fiction, my favorite character is the villain. Villain are much more complex and interesting than their boy scout counterparts. It's not a conscious decision, it is just something that just sort of happens. I do like the heroes, they are instrumental, but overall the quality of a story can be best judged by the main villains, if there are any. I prefer my Darth Vaders with a bit of Luke Skywalker, but I would definitely root for the bad guy. That's why I like Iago. Iago is a slick dude. He corrupts the hero, the strong, brave, determined, noble, powerful, and sharp Othello. He took the metaphorically white knight, Othello and proved that he could bring him down to his level. I'm sure that when Shakespeare was writing this he was inspired by The Dark Knight. I wasn't reminded of certain events or feelings i have experienced when I was reading this, but after reading it I can definitely see aspects of myself in some of the characters. We've all manipulated events in our lives to suit our desires, but Othello is a representation of this taken to an extreme. The pawns, Cassio and Desdemona do inspire pity, but I'm much more proud or appreciative of Iago's cunning than I am caring to those characters that were the losers of the story.