Fyodor Dostoevsky, an aspie?

Post Reply New Topic

Since many people says he is dark and hard for reading, i see his expression like celebration of love and totally understand him. Evan i found self in his book Idiot, actually that man people have seen like an idiot, but he was an smart aspie.

i thought he was hard to read because a) translation from russian b) written a while ago and language gradually changes over time.

Ive not read 'the idiot' yet, so i dont know but i think its often a mark of a profound writer where many diverse readers are able to identify parts of themselves in a character, and he certainly had that talent. Everyone reads their own version of a novel, the writer just provides a template.

I always thought that 'The Idiot' was supposed to be an ironic title. Prince Myshkin is supposed to be some sort of truly good person (Christian?), however in contrast to the society at the time he appears naive and idiotic. For readability I'd suggest translations by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, I've tried a couple of versions of Crime & Punishment and they wrote the most 'involving' version. I can see where your coming from with the Aspie traits, taking things literally we can probably appear quite naive (not to mention the obliviousness to social cues). I've heard aspies can be quite honest as well, from a purely practical point I find lying quite difficult (too much planning), so subjectively that sounds true. As a side note, if you like psychological novels you should try anything by Stefan Zweig, great author.

I suppose "Notes from Underground" is a long short story or a novella . . I found it deeply moving.

I could see it, but there's no use in posthumously "diagnosing" him now.

My interpretation of the main character Prince from "The Idiot" is that his being taken out of society as a child due to his illness and while he was away it seemed he socialized mainly with younger children could mostly explain why he was naive and "simple" to the adults he came across. He's partly based on Dostoevsky because of his epileptic condition but I don't know if the two are similar otherwise. I read in reviews of the book Prince is sort of meant as a symbol of a Christ-like figure. I sort of take him and some other characters in the book more as symbolic of concepts. The dialogue and events seems too fanciful and unrealistically disjointed to take at face value.

I kind of expect people to be good in the final analysis, and sometimes they're just not.

I seem to have less wall between myself and a 'stranger'---that actually proved advantageous in sales, political activism, and working for H&R Block (bank potentially takes entire refund, yeah really, not an ethical company, but can be with me working there and informing the client)

I'm trying to take it more in medium steps as I get to know a person.