Friday, February 4, 2011

Psycho

The story of Psycho is one I’ve long been familiar with due to Hitchcock’s excellent, groundbreaking film, but it wasn’t until recently that I was privileged enough to read the seminal Robert Bloch novel of the same name on which it was based.

This is a great book, hands down. The story itself is intriguing, the characterization near flawless, the prose itself is tight, the pace is relentless and we are left wanting for nothing at the end of the tale. In fact, the genius of this novel is in its sparsity, and in the decided minimum of gory spectacle that we now associate with the horror genre.

Consider the famous “shower scene” that spawned a thousand copy cats in literature and film alike and made me personally afraid to draw the curtain all the way. In Bloch’s book, the scene is only four paragraphs long, and short paragraphs at that. This doesn’t interfere with my enjoyment of the scene but rather it intensifies it. Here’s why: It’s not what we “see” or read here that makes this particular passage so terrifying. It’s what we don’t. It’s the fact that Bloch gives us only certain relevant facts and leaves the rest to our imagination. We don’t need more to be revolted.

Beyond the novel’s highly effective leanness, the characterization of Norman Bates is impeccable, and one of the first glimpses into the mind of a “psychopath” in the literary canon. Bloch does a masterful job both in depicting Norman and making us sympathize with him. As someone working in a closely related genre, I paid especial attention to all the ways in which Bloch provided us with just enough background that we found Norman’s horrific acts understandable, i.e. the description of the overly domineering mother and his meekness up until and right after each murder.

Unlike the legions of “serial killers” and “psychopaths” that populate much of contemporary horror fiction, Norman Bates isn’t a traditional sociopath. His emotions aren’t at all divorced from the act of killing, and he views each murder with a sense of expediency. After all, Mary does the unthinkable, she titillates Norman and she questions his behavior. He isn’t emotionally capable of dealing with either. His subsequent murder of Milton Arbogast he also views as necessary and in fact downright unavoidable.

If I have any beef with this novel, it’s that Bloch does such a terrific job with the character of Norman Bates and his dysfunctional relationship with his mother that the supporting characters and situations seem one dimensional and insipid by comparison. Mary’s relationship with Sam seems to exist only as a plot device and at the conclusion of Psycho, one is left wondering if Sam has exchanged Mary’s memory for her sister Lila’s obviously more animated attentions. Mary’s initial theft which necessitates her flight from Texas also seems like merely a means of getting her to the Bates Motel and not like the act of a particularly rational or intelligent person.

In short, I very much enjoyed this novel, and found it to be a textbook example of how to write about sympathetic psychopaths, which is a technique I attempt to employ in my own work.

6 comments:

  1. Good post, Carla. After reading your Jack the Ripper stuff, I was excited to read your take on PSYCHO. You make an interesting point about Norman eclipsing the other characters to a degree. My only quibble: I really liked the set-up of Mary's theft and flight. I thought it was really well done. I was drawn into it, into her, as a consequence, and I was really disappointed when she died. Sam and Lila were nowhere near as interesting to me as Mary. Side note: I loved how she pounced on her chance, justified the theft, then thought herself back to the start, changing her mind about the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found Norman sympathetic as well. In many ways he was a victim as much as anyone else. Knowing that he was based on Ed Gein and having read about Gein's own mother, it's not difficult to understand why he snapped. In contrast, Sam was completely uninteresting to me, perhaps because Norman was written so brilliantly. His character just seemed so flat in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I noticed the shower scene as well and was impressed by how short it was. It is such a classic, that I guess I expected it to be more detailed. But the few short paragraphs seem like more than enough. More detail would probably have ruined it.
    Good post.
    slhb

    ReplyDelete
  4. I find the sympathetic psycho approach interesting. Harris used it in "Red Dragon" pretty effectively, and also in "Black Sunday." Bloch refuses to let you dismiss the villain as a monster, but forces you to see him as a human being. The discomfort that results is part of what sells the story.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you that Norman made the other characters pale in comparison, but I also agree with John on Mary's character. I thought it was a good twist to have her work her way around to possible atonement for her crime. Had she just been your run of the mill, brazen criminal, her death would have seemed necessary or even justifiable. Because she showed herself to be a person who just made a bad decision and capable of rectifying it, her murder was more heinous, and acceptable by only Norman.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love that Norman was a sympathetic psycho, but the other character based on the same man (Ed Gein) wasn't. You know this right? Both Norman Bates and Leatherface were based on the same guy?

    Good post.

    ReplyDelete