Was Oliver Twist .... autistic?

Post Reply New Topic

This is a point I've met first here, but it certainly makes sense. I wish more people would be like those who have good inner (innate?) moral, like his character. And, if it requires being an Aspie, so be it! I think I'm more with Marx on this subject, but not totally.


Feeling of "Aha". Although, I'm a bit skeptical about Dickens intending to imply Oliver was noble because he had noble roots, but, I may be wrong. See Charley Bates or Nancy.

This coincidence is charming. I've found that this book is available in translation, and given its very admirable message, I've put it on my list to read.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who experiences such deep empathy toward fictional characters from novels.

Thank you and all of the others sharing their ideas and opinions on the topic's question the comfort I received.

Your posting style reminds me of Oliver Twist.

Thanks!

Oliver Twist was Charles Dickens's idea of Victorian goodness based on the concept of noble birth. He was trying to appeal to the middle class who had this belief those of noble birth were good, of low birth, evil and these were innate characteristics there at conception.
His last name "Twist" refers to the incredible twists of fate that dot Oliver's life.
I haven't read Dickens intended this protagonist to be interpreted autistic.

I think Oliver Twist isn't autistic so much as a stand-in for the reader.

Back when Dickens wrote that novel, it was really in fashion to write books like that--where the main character was little more than a viewpoint for the reader to look into the story, with not that much personality of his own, a person to whom things happen rather than someone who drives the story. He's more of a vehicle for storytelling than a true protagonist.

A modern (and much less well-written) example of such a character would be Bella from Twilight, who also has little personality of her own and serves primarily as a reader stand-in. The difference between Twilight and Oliver Twist, of course, is that the world of Oliver Twist is one worth exploring.

Yes, his name, "Twist" is rather disadvantageous for him. Twist, other that unexpected change, also means "to screw" and "dishonorable", if I get it well.

I'm not entirely see why Dickens would have made Oliver an example of Victorian goodness based on the concept of noble birth. Characters, like Charley Bates or even Nancy, had the definite potential being good, and Dickens himself "wished to show, in little Oliver, the principle of Good surviving trough every adverse circumstance, and triumphing at last".

The incredible twists in Oliver's life are elements of a tale which are even more incredulous than the implacable morality of his. Though, I see how Dickens could use the ply of a lost noble son to appeal for his audience, who, according to Angus Wilson, was the "vast illiterate early Victorian public, the mob whom he always, perhaps rightly, feared." Maybe, if Oliver had been initially placed in the dirtiest part of London, as the aforementioned two characters, he wouldn't have been as immune to crime. He would have been much like Charley, reaching good at the ending.

Oliver Twist is imaginary. Thus, the topic's primary question is superfluous.