I am not really sure what it was in this novel that made me feel almost nothing while reading it.

When Iris Murdoch tried to be funny, I felt no humor whatsoever. I witnessed her attempts to develop some intricate twists and turns, yet I was never on the edge of my seat. Her philosophical musings lulled me to sleep. Her efforts to infuse romance into the story only made me yawn.

My copy of this book has an introduction by Kiernan Ryan, who hails it as a bold and brilliant debut by Murdoch. Mr. Ryan discerns things in the novel that I simply don't see, even when he points them out. It's as if we're looking at a painting, and he perceives bold, masterful strokes, while I only see smudges of paint. But am I suggesting that I'm superior to Mr. Ryan? No. All I can say here is that he most likely received payment for writing that introduction, while I earn nothing from penning this short commentary.

I awarded this novel one star, and I would have given it that rating even if Goodreads had a zero-star option, because I do find something slightly interesting in it.

In Murdoch's other novel, "The Bell," my copy features an introduction by A.S. Byatt, who writes that Murdoch engages in a philosophical debate here, in "Under the Net," with Jean-Paul Sartre's "Nausea." In Sartre's novel, the protagonist Roquentin discovers no meaning in anything. He views his own existence with horror, proclaiming that life is meaningless, existence is a contingency without explanation, aim, or reason, and is thrust upon the living without their consent.

Recalling "Nausea," Murdoch manages to pique my interest a little with playful jabs like these: "Everywhere west of Earls Court is contingent, except for a few places along the river. I hate contingency. I want everything in my life to have a sufficient reason." (p.26) "The Bounty Belfounder studio is situated in a suburb of Southern London where contingency reaches the point of nausea." (p.156)

When I read "Nausea," where Sartre appears to have mastered the logic of meaninglessness, the question always lingered in the back of my mind: were these declamations through his character Roquentin what Sartre truly believed and felt, or were they just words? Here, through her own character Hugo, Murdoch states: "There's something fishy about describing people's feelings....All these descriptions are so dramatic...things are falsified from the start." Later, Hugo's raw ideas are further developed by another character, Jake, in a book he wrote called "The Silencer." He writes: "The movement away from theory and generality is the movement toward truth. All theorising is flight. We must be ruled by the situation itself and this is unutterably particular." So, Sartre's prattling about the meaninglessness of existence is halted and he is silenced by Jake. Existence is not something to be generalized and discussed through words. It is individually experienced and lived.

Uninspiring.

This word seems to sum up a lot of experiences and situations. It describes something that fails to arouse excitement, enthusiasm, or motivation.

An uninspiring speech can leave the audience feeling bored and unengaged. A dull classroom lecture may make students lose interest and struggle to stay focused.

Even in our daily lives, we may encounter uninspiring tasks or routines that seem to lack any real purpose or meaning.

However, it's important to remember that just because something is uninspiring doesn't mean it can't be improved or transformed.

We can try to find new perspectives, add a touch of creativity, or infuse it with our own passion and energy.

By doing so, we may be able to turn the uninspiring into something that is truly inspiring and fulfilling.

So, the next time you come across something that is uninspiring, don't give up. Instead, look for ways to breathe new life into it and make it something that leaves a lasting impression.

Jake Donaghue is a rather lazy and mooching individual, a failed writer to boot. \\"Under the Net\\" essentially presents a free-flowing account of his and his friends' antics in both London and Paris. However, beneath the surface lies a profound commentary on language. It delves into how words are often so inadequate in conveying ideas and rarely manage to express the truth accurately.

I almost gave up on this book by the halfway point. The only way I can describe my initial impression is that it felt vacuous. There simply didn't seem to be much substance to it. I didn't exactly hate it, but I just couldn't seem to muster any particular feeling towards the story, the characters, or the writing itself.

Fortunately, the second half of the book managed to pick up the pace a little. The events became marginally more interesting. There were even moments of sheer brilliance, such as the following passage:

"Daytime sleep is a cursed slumber from which one wakes in despair. The sun will not tolerate it. If he can, he will pry under your eyelids and prise them apart; and if you hand black curtains at your windows, he will lay siege to your room until it is so stifling that at last you stagger with staring eyes to the window and tear back the curtains to see that most terrible of sights, the broad daylight outside a room where you have been sleeping. There are special nightmares for the daytime sleeper: little nervous dreams tossed into some brief restless moment of unconsciousness and breaking through the surface of the mind to become confused at once with the horror of some waking vision."

This passage truly showcases the author's talent for vivid description and the ability to create a sense of unease and disorientation. It makes me wonder if there are more such gems hidden within the pages of this book, waiting to be discovered.

Ayn Rand's first literary work and one of the best novels of the 20th century in 1954. It is a philosophical, ideological and ethical novel that requires careful digestion of the philosophical views during reading.

The story is told by a talented young writer and translator named "Jake" who is lazy and rejects all forms of systematic work. He holds left-wing views but does not participate or work positively in politics. Through his conflicts and interactions with those around him, we see how unexpected disputes and decisions arise in creative life, and how he carves his path in the world of literature and philosophy. His philosophical conversations with his friend "Hugo", a mysterious and unclear personality, and we can see that Hugo's personality is our unclear life and the completely unknown world around us. Our hero struggles in his world and in the end tries to write his original novel instead of translation and his chaotic and aimless life.

Rand's narration is distinguished by its meticulousness, in terms of the detailed description of places, the behavior of characters and what goes on in their hearts. Also, the plot is as precise as a well-designed building, with many characters developing smoothly and beautifully among the events without disturbing the general narration. The brilliant Rand controls all these threads with the help of her understanding of human nature and her deep philosophical knowledge. Also, it is noted that she is steeped in myths, especially ancient Greek mythology, and her great love for the city of London and its rich landmarks and some of the landmarks of Paris as well, with a slight humorous touch to relieve the heavy philosophical and ideological burden. Rand never makes you feel bored.

I don't know the reason why Arab readers neglect to read her valuable works, and for the record, she has 27 novels and only a few of them have been translated. Also, there are no movies based on her works. I can imagine Jude Law in the place of our hero here, and by the way, he is one of the lovers of Rand's literature.

The translation by Fouad Kamil is excellent; it was also excellent with her Booker Prize-winning novel "The Sea, the Sea" in 1978.

"All kinds of organization are flight. The situation itself should control us, and this is a partial thing, there is no doubt about it. Also, it is something that we can never approach closely enough, no matter how hard we try, as if we are crawling under the net."

Here, the net refers to pure thought and philosophical theories.

I thought this was an absolutely wonderful book. However, it seems that the author herself didn't hold it in very high regard. The central character, Jake Donaghue, is a deeply flawed and self-absorbed artistic underachiever. This is the type of character that Murdoch would later develop so memorably in novels like The Black Prince and The Sea, The Sea. Under the Net may not be as savagely funny as those books, but it has a greater innocence and vitality. This is probably due to the main character's (and the author's) relative youth.

Because of this, Donaghue's meditations on love, artistic and philosophical endeavor, friendship, London, Paris, and the meaning of life in general come across as more charming than preening and self-indulgent. Although he is undoubtedly both of those things too.

There is a chapter about a quarter of the way into the book where Jake and his mates Dave and Finn hook up with a left-wing activist during a spontaneous drinking binge. This binge culminates with them swimming naked in the River Thames as dawn approaches. It is one of the most evocative things I've read in a long time. It perfectly captures the joyousness of a particular type of night out at a particular time in life in a big city. And particularly that feeling of boundless optimism with an undertow of melancholy that tends to come on at the point of peak inebriation.

The book is also filled with quotable passages and aphorisms. It's impossible to select a single favorite, so I'll go with two. The first one is: "I hate solitude, but I'm afraid of intimacy. The substance of my life is a private conversation with myself which to turn into a dialogue would be equivalent to self-destruction. The company which I need is the company which a pub or a cafe will provide. I have never wanted a communion of souls. It's already hard enough to tell the truth to oneself." The second one is: "Events stream past us like these crowds and the face of each is seen only for a minute. What is urgent is not urgent for ever but only ephemerally. All work and all love, the search for wealth and fame, the search for truth, like itself, are made up of moments which pass and become nothing. Yet through this shaft of nothings we drive onward with that miraculous vitality that creates our precarious habitations in the past and the future." It's hard to know what to say to that, other than yes and bravo.

What is necessary is not for always, but only ephemeral.

All the work and all the love, the search for wealth and fame, the pursuit of truth are made up of moments that pass and turn into nothing.

However, through this sheaf of nothings, we advance with that miraculous vitality that creates the places that we precariously inhabit in the past and in the future.

Thus we live: a spirit that disputes and hovers over the continuous death of time, the lost meaning, the irrecoverable moment, the forgotten face, until the final blow that ends all our moments and once again immerses that spirit in the void from where it came.

This profound thought makes us realize that life is a series of fleeting moments, yet it is through these moments that we build our existence. We should cherish each moment, for it is in these instants that we find the essence of life.

Although everything may seem transient and insignificant in the grand scheme of things, our experiences and the emotions we feel in each moment shape who we are and give meaning to our lives.

We should not be overly concerned with the passing of time or the impermanence of things, but rather focus on living fully in the present and making the most of each precious moment.

If I were to dog-ear every page that contains a quote I love, I'd end up dog-earing every single page of this book.

This remarkable piece of literature is not only funny to the point of making you laugh out loud, but it's also incredibly endearing and, oddly enough, thought-provoking.

I'm truly amazed at how Murdoch managed to pen a book that combines slapstick humor, deus ex machina level resolutions to current problems, and random occurrences that seem to make no sense, yet somehow also contains some of the most profound philosophical and metaphysical reflections I've ever come across in a book. It's nothing short of brilliant, and I cherished every moment I spent reading it.

By far, my favorite scene is when Jake (who, for me, ranks up there with Jake Barnes, Jack Burden, and Nick Carroway as a loner male first-person narrator, and what's even more interesting is that he's written by a woman) undertakes his pilgrimage to Paris.

My American Literature professor described Jake Barnes's trip from Paris to Spain in The Sun Also Rises as a pilgrimage, characterizing it as Jake B's journey from being an apprentice to becoming an exemplar.

Jake B learns from his travels in Spain, has a sacred experience, and returns to Paris the same yet deeply changed. That's precisely what happens to this Jake, Jake Donaghue, when he travels to Paris.

Jakie is a writer and an intellectual. This means he doesn't have to work in the traditional sense, and nobody really judges him for it (although they do judge him for not really writing and for being intellectual - he typically just moves from place to place and drinks a lot - it was the fifties, after all).

The beginning of the book does an excellent job of building Jake's character, showing us some of his strange adventures, introducing us to key players, and setting up the plot points that lead to the pilgrimage.

In the midst of the more comical part of this "comic novel about work and love, wealth and fame" (as stated on the cover), we are introduced to Hugo, who challenges Jake's philosophical views with his own nominally, though not literally, idealistic ones.

Hugo's main argument revolves around the fact that people who try to theorize about life and come up with one "umbrella" term for their beliefs to categorize and justify their decisions as a guiding principle are further from the truth than those who simply handle situations as they come, blundering through and figuring it out as they go.

These are the people who "crawl under the net" and don't stop to think about everything all the time. Of course, Hugo wants to belong to the second group if possible, and Jakie definitely belongs to the first.

All Jake does is think. He doesn't actually do, but then a series of events occur, and he ends up in Paris, walking through the city.

As he walks, he discovers something, and the passage where he is walking, where he makes assumptions and builds up unfounded expectations instead of seeing things and people for what and who they truly are, is one of the most beautiful passages I've ever read in a book.

And it's not just because Paris is my favorite city in the world and I felt as if I was there, to the extent that I had to stop reading and hold back strong tears of sadness, regret, and also gratefulness.

It's also because the passage is slow, thoughtful, and moving. The ending of that chapter broke my heart yet also made sense and felt right.

After Jake's pilgrimage, we see yet another different aspect of this book. It almost feels like three separate novels, but they all come together because the pilgrimage can only happen after the comedic part, and the action and discovery can only occur after the pilgrimage.

I love the reveals at the end, and the actual ending is very bittersweet yet also funny. Not in a "HAHAHAHA" kind of way, but more like "Hm, that's life."

Besides Jakie, whom I obviously adore, my favorite thing was thinking about Jake and Hugo's debate.

Does it make more sense to reflect, have ideals about people and situations, and be disappointed, never really acting because you're also stopping to consider?

Or does it make more sense to see the truth laid bare, just keep moving from point to point, never stopping to reflect about people or things but just barreling through?

I don't know. I see merit in both ways of life, but I feel like the novel makes a comment on this question at the end that is extremely satisfying.

There are a few points made that I'd like to think about further. One in particular applied to myself as I suddenly realized that I'm an intellectual!

It's unsettling, but I teach English part-time and I write. I've never really had a manual job, and I've never worked full-time. I worked as a waitress for 15 hours a week during college, and then I worked at a library and started tutoring and eventually teaching. I'm Jake!

I reflect all the time, and I often think more than I act. So, Hugo's comments and Jake's thoughts about those comments made me think about myself and finding a balance, and it was a strange yet productive experience.

I was also thinking about how Marx's great argument was about the dialectical materialism of work. We know ourselves through what we produce (and dialectics and materialism also come into this book, of course), but if you never produce anything, can you really know yourself, and isn't it more satisfying when you produce something physical, something you can look at and say, "Me but not me, therefore..."?

Again, I don't know, but it's good to think about. And maybe we should avoid overthinking and just "do" more.

Overall, I highly recommend this book. It's truly excellent, and I'm so glad I read it.

I wasn't sure how it would be, especially when I first opened it and saw the small print crammed on the pages, but as I started reading, it didn't feel that way at all.

This is a rare book that I both didn't want to end and also wanted to reread before I even finished it. I absolutely loved it!!

I must admit that I find this novel rather challenging to rate. It was indeed a relatively fast read for me. Every time I picked it up, I did experience a certain degree of enjoyment. However, the writing skill and the plot progress seemed to vary. On one hand, there were moments when the author's writing was truly captivating, drawing me in and making me eager to turn the page. On the other hand, there were also times when the plot seemed to move a bit too slowly or lacked the necessary depth. This is my first encounter with an Iris Murdoch novel, and I firmly believe that I need to read more of her works to gain a better understanding of her writing style and the overall quality of her novels.

Under the Net is a remarkable 1954 novel penned by Iris Murdoch. Set in the vibrant city of London, it delves into the life of a young and struggling writer named Jake Donaghue. This, being Murdoch's first novel, combines the philosophical with the picaresque, which has contributed to its popularity.

The picaresque novel, as defined, is a genre of prose fiction that portrays the adventures of a charming yet roguish hero of low social class, who navigates a corrupt society using their wits. In this story, we encounter several important characters. Magdalen Casement, also known as Madge, is Jake's landlady. Hugo Belfounder is a fireworks manufacturer and film magnate. Anna Quentin is a singer, and Sadie Quentin is a film star. There's also Mr. Mars, an Alsatian dog.
The novel explores several compelling themes. One such theme is the inadequacy of language. Quotes like "The whole language is a machine for making falsehoods" and "Actions don’t lie, words always do. But now I see that this was all a hallucination" highlight this. Another theme is unrequited love. Jake loves Anna, but Anna loves Hugo, who in turn loves Sadie, and Sadie loves Jake.
I was truly amazed by how much I enjoyed this book. Despite there being little to admire about Jake, his story is highly entertaining and a pleasure to read. Iris Murdoch, even in her first novel, showcases great skill in her descriptions and phrasing. She has now become another one of my favorite authors. I would毫不犹豫地 give this book 5 stars.

It's a must-read for anyone who enjoys a thought-provoking and engaging story.

Here is an expanded version of the article:

This is yet another work that you will read with quite different feelings. It is a work that I would recommend, but I don't think it will be liked by everyone. Each person has their own unique taste and preferences when it comes to literature. What one person may find captivating, another may not. This particular work might have its own charm and appeal, but it may not resonate with every individual. However, it is always worth giving it a try and seeing if it speaks to you.

https://edebiyatdanostalji.blogspot.c...

Maybe you will discover something new and exciting within its pages. So, don't be afraid to step out of your comfort zone and explore this work. You never know what might surprise you.

Jake Donaghue is a would-be writer who fritters away his energy on a plethora of meaningless distractions. Instead of focusing on his craft, he spends his meager earnings as a hack translator on pub-hopping with his friends.

The novel takes some time to set up, with a half-dozen characters introduced through Jake's self-centered perspective. We meet Anna Quentin, a talented chanteuse; her glamorous movie star sister Sadie; Sammy Starfield, an entrepreneurial ex-bookie; and Magdalen, who is in the process of reinventing herself and kicks Jake and his friend Finn out of her apartment. Jake's narrative jumps from cliché to affected indifference to frenzied emoting.

The story really gets going on page 50 when Hugo Belfounder is introduced. Hugo believes that language is a tool for creating falsehoods due to its inevitable bias. Jake compiles their conversations into a book in the form of a Socratic dialogue, but it predictably fails to become a best-seller.

The plot is filled with madcap situations and clever coincidences, such as the kidnapping of a movie star dog and the collapse of a Roman stage set. Some readers may find these constructions laborious, but I was charmed by Murdoch's writing and unique turn of phrase.

I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this book, despite my initial doubts about its comedic nature. My favorite character was the non-judgmental cat lady, Mrs. Tinckham, who reminded me of the Cheshire Cat in "Alice in Wonderland." I was delighted to see a reference to this in the book's final pages.

Overall, "The Black Prince" is a witty and engaging novel that explores the limits of language and the absurdity of human behavior.

A Book Lacking in Ideological Depth.

This is a rather peculiar and poignant novel that delves into the themes of impermanence, time, and the things we assume to be eternally unchangeable. When one considers that this was Murdoch's first work, it is actually not bad. However, there are countless other books that are also "not bad." There is nothing truly exciting or captivating about this work. It is filled with a lyrical mood, yet there are also some very curious episodes.

I read the book sporadically because in some places the main character elicited a vague sense of irritation in me. I suppose I simply couldn't accept him or his way of life. Call me petty and materialistic, but it seems foolish to reject money for "doing nothing" when at the same time one is free to do as one pleases. I wouldn't be surprised if both the title and the plot were completely wiped from my memory within half a year.

All in all, if it were up to me to decide the fate of this book, I wouldn't have chased Murdoch off the publisher's doorstep. This is a very shallow, yet cleverly written work. I will always appreciate the efforts of a writer who has invested so much in documenting their strange but charming imagination.