I have mixed feelings about this book. It is an interesting enough story and it accomplishes several things. 1. It establishes a clear sense of community (or lack of one). There is so much detail that I get that small town feeling where everybody knows everybody else's business. 2. The increasing paranoia of the town comes across wonderfully. The townspeople go from mildly suspicious to shoot-first-ask-questions-later (if at all). The paranoia is almost justified because there are kids involved. At the same time though, they go completely overboard (ransacking a home, for example). 3. The frustrations of people taking the law into their own hands are depicted so clearly that it was a bit scary. I could see people really acting like that and I think that is why it is scary. The mob mentality of angry groups always makes me nervous, and in this book there is a group of people who are both angry and scared. That is just a dangerous combination. In addition, the way this mob develops is interesting. It starts out as the "Friends," a group of people dedicated to finding the missing girls. But it turns into a pretend police force; I could almost picture angry villagers with torches and pitchforks.
All of those elements combine in such a way that this novel seems to have more than one "psycho." The most obvious psycho is the man abducting and killing the girls. But so many other crimes and murders take place, that there are several "psychos" in this one town. Dobyns did such a great job of showing this entire community that it seemed reasonable that the real "psycho" could have been anybody. I liked trying to figure out who it could be and it felt like I had an endless cast of characters from which to choose.
On the other hand, there were two things that I did not like. 1. The point of view. It is a first person narrator, but it really sounds like a thrid person omniscient narrator. This guy seems to know everything. And there are even a few times when the narrator tells us how he knows certain things (that he overheard a conversation, that he was told from another person, etc.). I just felt like the reader knew so much about everybody that a first person narrator was a bad fit. At the same time, it made the narrator seem like a creepy know-it-all and I thought he would turn out to be the murderer. This is not a big enough issue that it made me dislike the book; I simply remember stopping to think about it a couple of times. 2. The pace/details. I understand that all of the details were most likely necessary; it is how the reader learns so much about this town and its inhabitants. It is also how the author creates atmosphere. However, it felt like a little much at times. Sometimes I would get a bit mixed up about which characers were which and at other times the book felt like it moved along so slowly.
One of the more creepy parts of the book was at the very end when the narrator starts talking about hidden desires. "I spend more time with my students. At times it seems that I think of them as sexual creatures more often than I did in the past." "If you could look to the bottom of a human being, what desires would you find? And what desires are concealed beneath my white shirt and bow tie, my civilized veneer?" Then, this is turned on the reader: "What do you do with your fear? And do you dream?" It is a great way to end the book because it is suggesting that we are all a little crazy inside. We are just able to hide it and control it.
For now.
PSYCHO by Robert Bloch
PSYCHO by Robert Bloch
I love this book. It’s fun, entertaining, and well-written. In addition, it is a quick read. I was able to get through the reading in a day; but more importantly, I wanted to get through it quickly because I wanted to see what was going to happen next (even though I already had a pretty good idea).
One of the most interesting things about this book is how Bloch portrays Norman’s relationship with his mother. From the very beginning, I knew that Norman was acting as his mother and that she was dead the whole time. However, I knew this because I saw the movie. I wonder, though, how long that remains a mystery for a reader who has never seen the movie. How much of a surprise was that when the book came out originally?
I like the comparison that is created between Norman and Mary. On page 44, Norman freaks out in defending his mother and proving that she is not crazy. In response to the suggestion that his mother be institutionalized, Norman says, “But who are you to say a person should be put away? I think perhaps all of us go a little crazy at times.” It is clear that Norman is crazy. But so is Mary. She stole money, swapped out her cars, and is on the run thinking that she can get away with her crime. They both have a crazy element to their personalities.
The initial murder scene is great. It is clean and quick. “It was the knife that, a moment later, cut off her scream. And her head.” There is no count of the number of stabs. There is no account of the placement of stabs. There is no description of the blood spraying or spattering. It is simple and great. I think that the brevity of the killing is a reflection of the insanity of the murderer. It is as if the murder is the most normal or expected event; so much so, that it requires no more detail than the two lines it is given. It also maintains ambiguity about the true identity of the murderer.
It is also interesting that both Mary and Norman were in some way significantly and adversely affected by their mothers. Mary sacrificed pursuing certain goals in order to take care of her ailing mother and to make sure that her sister could go to school. Eventually, after her mother died, Mary recognizes that she lost it. She sees her reflection in the mirror and knows that she has seen the “drawn, contorted countenance” before. Specifically, “after Mom died, when you went to pieces.” I get the feeling that she is a bit sheltered and maybe repressed. Norman on the other hand, makes sacrifices in order to take care of his mother’s corpse after he digs it up. In a way, through their relationships with their mothers, they both sacrifice aspects of their normalcy. (Of course, Norman loses a lot more of his normalcy.)
Overall, this is a great book. The pacing and the characterizations are wonderful. My only criticism is that I would have liked to read the book before watching the movie. I am interested in knowing if anyone had that experience (reading the book first) and what you thought of it.
I love this book. It’s fun, entertaining, and well-written. In addition, it is a quick read. I was able to get through the reading in a day; but more importantly, I wanted to get through it quickly because I wanted to see what was going to happen next (even though I already had a pretty good idea).
One of the most interesting things about this book is how Bloch portrays Norman’s relationship with his mother. From the very beginning, I knew that Norman was acting as his mother and that she was dead the whole time. However, I knew this because I saw the movie. I wonder, though, how long that remains a mystery for a reader who has never seen the movie. How much of a surprise was that when the book came out originally?
I like the comparison that is created between Norman and Mary. On page 44, Norman freaks out in defending his mother and proving that she is not crazy. In response to the suggestion that his mother be institutionalized, Norman says, “But who are you to say a person should be put away? I think perhaps all of us go a little crazy at times.” It is clear that Norman is crazy. But so is Mary. She stole money, swapped out her cars, and is on the run thinking that she can get away with her crime. They both have a crazy element to their personalities.
The initial murder scene is great. It is clean and quick. “It was the knife that, a moment later, cut off her scream. And her head.” There is no count of the number of stabs. There is no account of the placement of stabs. There is no description of the blood spraying or spattering. It is simple and great. I think that the brevity of the killing is a reflection of the insanity of the murderer. It is as if the murder is the most normal or expected event; so much so, that it requires no more detail than the two lines it is given. It also maintains ambiguity about the true identity of the murderer.
It is also interesting that both Mary and Norman were in some way significantly and adversely affected by their mothers. Mary sacrificed pursuing certain goals in order to take care of her ailing mother and to make sure that her sister could go to school. Eventually, after her mother died, Mary recognizes that she lost it. She sees her reflection in the mirror and knows that she has seen the “drawn, contorted countenance” before. Specifically, “after Mom died, when you went to pieces.” I get the feeling that she is a bit sheltered and maybe repressed. Norman on the other hand, makes sacrifices in order to take care of his mother’s corpse after he digs it up. In a way, through their relationships with their mothers, they both sacrifice aspects of their normalcy. (Of course, Norman loses a lot more of his normalcy.)
Overall, this is a great book. The pacing and the characterizations are wonderful. My only criticism is that I would have liked to read the book before watching the movie. I am interested in knowing if anyone had that experience (reading the book first) and what you thought of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)