Care to elaborate why? Are you arguing the inverse; that there is no relation between a writer's work and his headspace? Depends on the characters and situations. In most instances, no. In a few, yes. Riddle me this; if you were to talk to someone who struck you as completely crazy, would you argue that there was no relationship between their words and headspace? That just because they talked in an "unusual" or "unorthodox" manner, there was no way it reflected on their mind?
There is, but you seem to be making a connection between a writer's mental state and the subject matter/ideas he incorporates into his books. Just because Dostoevsky wrote about a murderer or a group of nihilists does not make him insane. In fact, he was heavily influenced by the political situation in Russia at the time. Nihilism was gaining popularity among young Russians back in the mid-19th century, so it's perfectly sound that he would choose to incorporate these things into his books. Talking and writing are two different things, and in this case, it's apples and oranges. You're judging a writer's sanity based on the subject matter/ideas in his book. That would be like judging a person's sanity based on what he talks about and not how he talks. If you want an example of a book written by an actual insane person, check out Daniel Schreber's Memoirs of My Nervous Illness. He had dementia praecox, a form of psychosis.
I never once wrote this, though. Not even close. I consider Dostoevsky's works to be insane for reasons completely unrelated to the subject matter. In fact, I was very explicit about this, which you seem to have ignored; "The character of Svidrigailov in "Crime and Punishment"? His dreams about the nature of reality? Even Raskolnikov himself? Would any sane person think that way?" Where does the subject matter, especially "murder" or "nihlism", factor into what I wrote? Anyways, I will assume you actually want to discuss the subject, and that this strawman of yours was unintentional. A dubious argument. People often reveal themselves far more through writing than they do by mere talking. You also avoided my actual question; have you ever decided someone was insane from talking with them? You're confusing yourself with your own strawman. I feel the way about Dostoevsky, Kafka, and Faulkner's writings in large part because of their associations, ideas, and ways of expressing them; which is very much how they talk. By your own reasoning, then, my views are legitimate. Incidientally, Stendahl's The Red and the Black is also about a young student who becomes an ax murderer, but there is nothing I consider insane about it.
Wait, so are you saying that the authors of these works are insane or that the works themselves are insane? In your last post, you say that you consider "Dostoevsky's works to be insane," but in your post on the previous page you say that "Writers whose works impressed upon me that they were insane are Kafka, Dostoevsky, Faulkner, and to a slightly lesser extent, Oscar Wilde." In the latter case, it seems you're talking about the writers themselves, although I suppose the "they" in "they were insane" could mean the authors' works (ambiguous they). I'll answer your questions once this issue is cleared up.
The books have an insane quality to them, and it reflects a certain degree of insanity in their respective authors, yes.
I actually don't agree that books can be called "insane" or even have insane qualities (the closest thing I could think of is that a book has absurd qualities, but that's not quite the same thing), but that's something we'll have to agree to disagree on. Anyway, to answer your questions: There's nothing unusual at all about any of those things. So yes, a sane person would think that way. Like I said before, Dostoevsky was heavily influenced by the politics/philosophy of his time (which is why I brought up nihilism), and his characters' beliefs and thoughts are a reflection of that. Actually, no. I don't quite agree. Associations and ideas are the what. The ways ideas are expressed are the how. And unless the way someone expresses an idea is completely illogical, how an idea is expressed is not an indicator of insanity.
According to you. According to everyone I have discussed "Crime and Punishment" with, Svidrigailov's dream is utterly mad. If that dream was truly "nothing unusual" to you, I am simultaneously sorry and jealous. Sorry because the dream was incredible and thrilling to read, just for how utterly alien it was to normal thinking, and jealous because apparently, thinking of something so crazy would be easy for you to write? Well, there you go. You've never considered anyone insane based on their speech. Most people do. Similarly, you haven't considered anyone insane based on their writing, although it's an equally valid interference. I was quite clear that it's a combination of the two. For instance, there was once a homeless black man who I thought was crazy. He was delivering a sermon on the evils of black women. Except that it wasn't directed at anyone passing by him. Instead, he was loudly preaching to the pile of clothes in his shopping cart. Certainly, the "what" of his speech, and who it was directed towards, was mad already. But just to dispel any doubts, the "how" was equally crazy; he would periodically laugh randomly, and then suddenly start loudly humming.
Ok, I've tried the translator Lemex suggested for the Trial. Lo and behold, it's better. Still, I can't say I'm in love with his style. I still find a lot of his sentences to be too long, too fluffy, too repetitive, and using the same very simple type of words. There's a potential mysticism to the characters, that no doubt was intended, but it's not entirely working for me. Someone on page 1 mentioned their girlfriend read his work in german. I find that very interesting. Definitely from this translator, I can appreciate more the creepy tone he was probably going for, but it's still obvious something is lost. Still, I wonder how much of the bland style is natural or artificial.
The thing is that I read his works in chronological order, so some of the themes I was already familiar with. I also read his Diaries of a Writer before reading Crime and Punishment, so I read a lot of his ideas (murder, elitism, young Russian revolutionaries) before I came across them in any of his novels. The only way to find out is to learn German and read the original.
Yes, but none of those specific ideas were discussed in the dream. It's something else entirely. And many other Russian writers have covered those same themes, but in a manner I consider completely sane. (Chekhov, for one)
The theme of rape and suicide was discussed in his short story "The Dream of a Ridiculous Man" I believe. A lot of his diary entries also focus on current events, suicide, murder, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if that dream in Crime and Punishment was based off a real life event. His novel Demons was heavily inspired by the murder of a young student at that time.
