Notes from the Underground, The Double and Other Stories

[Countess]

I've been reading this book (consisting of several short stories) and I am really taking issue with the Introduction, written by Deborah Martinsen.
She demonstrates a very poor understanding of basic human psychology, and has lumped the Underground Man, the White Nights dreamer, and The Double under the title "narcissist."

Anyone who has studied psychology would recognize that the Underground Man is the only one of the three that truly fits the definition of a Narcissistic personality. The White Nights Dreamer embodies the "Avoidant" Personality so much, that I wonder if D. didn't go down a checklist of characteristics to ensure he had included them all in his book. And, although I haven't read The Double yet, if "splitting" is defined in a pure clinical context, then most likely he's a Borderline personality (I'll reserve final judgement post-read).

I have been so bothered by this propogation of what I consider false info to the point that I feel compelled to write Mrs. Martinsen. I know I am being silly, though.

Has anyone else read an introduction to a work that they felt was patently false or at least, misleading?

[quasimodo1]

My Dear Countess of Moldavia: If "Notes from the Underground" is narcissistiic, how would you classify "Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man". I ask this question because my genius cousin refers to himself as narcissistic but I think of him as something of the family altruist, although he has a dragonfly-like presence complete with jetlag.

[Countess]

Hi Quasi,

It's been awhile since I've read Portrait of the Artist (High School? College? 15+ years ago anyhow) but I've been meaning to reread it (last visit to library - it was checked out).

I'll revisit said library today and hopefully (if its in) do a quick refresher and give you feedback soon, okay? Thanks for reminding me of that book.

C

[kathycf]

You know, it's dumb but I can't think of any specific examples. I know I have read introductions and been mystified at the choice of the person writing the intro in addition to their actual introductory piece. Sort of like opening a book and going "Huh"?

Perhaps when my attack of senility wears off I can be more to the point. :lol:

[bazarov]

And what is narcissistic in Underground Man? Just a very clever guy who tries his knowledge about human psychology...Unfortunately, he knew it well.

[chaplin]

Has anyone else read an introduction to a work that they felt was patently false or at least, misleading?

I haven't read The Double yet...


Usually they're so short and superficial there's nothing really to take offense at or strongly disagree with.

I think that The Double is Dostoevsky's best work, mostly because it is so influenced by Gogol that it's almost a parody, copy, or a better word than the previous two, of Gogol's stuff.

[Countess]

Quasimodo,
Finished Portrait and I have to say, yes, Stephen Dedalus is a narcissist. The key quote occurs at the end, when Cranly asks "Have you never loved anyone?" to which Stephen replies "I tried to love God...it seems I have failed."
But, Joyce does not leave Stephen as hopeless as Dostoevsky left the Underground Man. The Underground Man says "In the first place, by then I was incapable of love", meaning he had long since passed the stage of it being a possibility. Stephen simply says he *hasn't* loved - which leaves optimists (like me) with enough room to decide that he eventually found true faith/love of God through Protestantism and became a Presbyterian minister, whereupon he preached great revivals and narcissists everywhere fell in love with God, their fellow humans, and their country.
And I should have prefaced all this by saying the #1 trait (an exclusive trait) that separates narcissists from all others is their inability to love.
FWIW - my Jules is/was a narcissist, but unlike Dostoevsky I didn't leave him wallowing permanently nor have him hanging in the balance like Joyce, but at the end, he makes a decsion that reflects love. When my Ana writes (paraphrased) "I'm marrying Jessie; don't try to stop me. But I love you more than I've ever loved anyone and always will", he knows all he has to do is hop on a plane and appear at her doorstep, and she will abandon Jessie for him. But, realizing he has caused her so much misery and pain, he sacrifices his own desires (to have her around) for her benefit, so by making himself miserable, he makes her happy (or close to it - but Ana could never be truly happy without Jules, thus saith the author).
Don't know your cousin so can't say anything about him. (-: