Psycho by Robert Bloch
I really enjoyed this read. Despite some of the poor grammatical style and outdated phrasing, the story was rather enjoyable. I felt myself compelled to finish it.
I want to start with it has been a very long time since seeing a film adaptation of this. In fact, I did not actually know Hitchcock's film was based on a written work. To be blunt, I was pleasantly surprised it was a novel. I am going to be honest, I love the concept of Psycho, but I never enjoyed the execution, off memory. However, I enjoyed this ride.
First, let's start with Mary. Poor Mary. I love it when people die. She didn't need to be a three-dimensional character, and I do not think she was, but she had substance. As much as I appreciated her bluntness with Norman, I was satisfied when she got sliced. Her sister, Lila, was intelligent but severely got on my nerves. I understand the sister intuition she had, and I supported her feelings, but for some reason, she really irked me. I don't know if it was her the lack of believably for her to be wandering around and traveling when it is built up her and Mary were not precisely financially stable or if it was her determination that threw me out the window, but there was something about her. As far as Sam and the sheriff, they were useless, in my opinion. Why? Sam was very passive, and so was the sheriff, I guess it felt all too real waiting for the right people to do something about the issue.
Now, let's talk about Norman Bates. What an excellent choice for the entrance to a term full of Psychos. He is one if there ever was one to exist. However, I hate how much the novel stressed mental illness is almost equivalent to being dangerous. While he was clearly unmedicated, and vulnerable because of it, the town KNEW the shit he went through twenty-some years ago, and just ignored his existence. It seems, well, wild. I guess, sure he is an adult, but to what concept can we verify that? They assumed he walked in on his mother's suicide with Joe and found the bodies. Regardless of age, that is more than enough to spiral someone out of control, especially someone so dependent on another individual as he was to Norma. What a shame on Bloch's end, despite his outdated terms such as "transvestite," he could have done a lot for mental health. Granted, I do not know much about the mental health scene of the '50s, but regardless, he had the chance to make a more definite statement. Clearly, in the end, we find out Norman has always had signs of these issues, hence why he killed his mother and her boyfriend. However, the ordeal, in truth or behind the firewall he built to cover their deaths up, that is damming he was left alone to just run the motel without even a wellness check. Shows how you can be concerned for one day, and thrown away the next. Maybe it was a bit too real for me to properly process, and this is my scapegoat out of it, blaming Bloch for his lack of concern for the image of those who suffer from mental illnesses.
With Norman's history as we were exposed to, he makes an excellent psycho. Some mommy's boy aspect: he kills her for wanting to marry another man, which meant that he would no longer be the ONLY man left for her if she did so. There are also hints of sexual abuse. Some of the personality dialogues between Norman and Norma also made me wonder: did she abuse him sexually? I think the mystery of the novel was well executed. Bloch exposed things at the right time. Had I never seen a film adaptation prior, Norman would have convinced me his mother was literally insane, and he was protecting her. Shit, even parts of the novel made me second guess the parts of the film I remember with how well the narration flows.
The best issue addressed is that Mr. Bates was way outside of touch with reality. He also has a distaste for the majority of the main people we see, so why not the other motel guests too? It is hinted at the end they plan to investigate, and that is an excellent lead to a sequel (take notes Breeding Ground). Now, David and Haleigh, you will see just how much I hate almost every ending I read throughout the term, but this is not one of them. Well played, Mr. Johnson...well played indeed.
I want to make one final note on how well Norman convinces himself and the readers that he is not insane and explains his own feelings very logically. Normal Norman, I mean. Child Norman was a very frustrating character to follow, and Norma Norman was my favorite of them all. Lila even makes a few comments on how we aren't all sane as we seem or pretend to be. I feel that the statement is very accurate and rings the bells on the brain. Rationalization is part of the human psyche. We even see Mary do it throughout her appearance until she is killed. Aside from Mr. Bates with his actions, Mary with the money, Sam with his debt, Lila with her coming to terms of her sister's death, the other characters (Sherriff and the detective) failed to meet this character development. And it makes me wonder why? Considering those two would be the ones to have seen some shit.
Norman was the only well-rounded character in the novel. All the others were there because it logically made sense. I think that is what I loved the most. The "psycho" was the most in-depth character we fell into, and I don't think I would have wanted it any other way. Whether we were in child eyes being berated by Norma, or in a woman's nightgown taking care of business, there was never a dull moment with him. However, I cannot say whether or not I was rooting for him, the jury will remain out on that for a while. He had the history before to be dangerous, and no one cared to give him the attention it needed. That, I feel, is truly how someone dangerous comes about to be exposed. One showing the signs with no one to care.
I want to start with it has been a very long time since seeing a film adaptation of this. In fact, I did not actually know Hitchcock's film was based on a written work. To be blunt, I was pleasantly surprised it was a novel. I am going to be honest, I love the concept of Psycho, but I never enjoyed the execution, off memory. However, I enjoyed this ride.
First, let's start with Mary. Poor Mary. I love it when people die. She didn't need to be a three-dimensional character, and I do not think she was, but she had substance. As much as I appreciated her bluntness with Norman, I was satisfied when she got sliced. Her sister, Lila, was intelligent but severely got on my nerves. I understand the sister intuition she had, and I supported her feelings, but for some reason, she really irked me. I don't know if it was her the lack of believably for her to be wandering around and traveling when it is built up her and Mary were not precisely financially stable or if it was her determination that threw me out the window, but there was something about her. As far as Sam and the sheriff, they were useless, in my opinion. Why? Sam was very passive, and so was the sheriff, I guess it felt all too real waiting for the right people to do something about the issue.
Now, let's talk about Norman Bates. What an excellent choice for the entrance to a term full of Psychos. He is one if there ever was one to exist. However, I hate how much the novel stressed mental illness is almost equivalent to being dangerous. While he was clearly unmedicated, and vulnerable because of it, the town KNEW the shit he went through twenty-some years ago, and just ignored his existence. It seems, well, wild. I guess, sure he is an adult, but to what concept can we verify that? They assumed he walked in on his mother's suicide with Joe and found the bodies. Regardless of age, that is more than enough to spiral someone out of control, especially someone so dependent on another individual as he was to Norma. What a shame on Bloch's end, despite his outdated terms such as "transvestite," he could have done a lot for mental health. Granted, I do not know much about the mental health scene of the '50s, but regardless, he had the chance to make a more definite statement. Clearly, in the end, we find out Norman has always had signs of these issues, hence why he killed his mother and her boyfriend. However, the ordeal, in truth or behind the firewall he built to cover their deaths up, that is damming he was left alone to just run the motel without even a wellness check. Shows how you can be concerned for one day, and thrown away the next. Maybe it was a bit too real for me to properly process, and this is my scapegoat out of it, blaming Bloch for his lack of concern for the image of those who suffer from mental illnesses.
With Norman's history as we were exposed to, he makes an excellent psycho. Some mommy's boy aspect: he kills her for wanting to marry another man, which meant that he would no longer be the ONLY man left for her if she did so. There are also hints of sexual abuse. Some of the personality dialogues between Norman and Norma also made me wonder: did she abuse him sexually? I think the mystery of the novel was well executed. Bloch exposed things at the right time. Had I never seen a film adaptation prior, Norman would have convinced me his mother was literally insane, and he was protecting her. Shit, even parts of the novel made me second guess the parts of the film I remember with how well the narration flows.
The best issue addressed is that Mr. Bates was way outside of touch with reality. He also has a distaste for the majority of the main people we see, so why not the other motel guests too? It is hinted at the end they plan to investigate, and that is an excellent lead to a sequel (take notes Breeding Ground). Now, David and Haleigh, you will see just how much I hate almost every ending I read throughout the term, but this is not one of them. Well played, Mr. Johnson...well played indeed.
I want to make one final note on how well Norman convinces himself and the readers that he is not insane and explains his own feelings very logically. Normal Norman, I mean. Child Norman was a very frustrating character to follow, and Norma Norman was my favorite of them all. Lila even makes a few comments on how we aren't all sane as we seem or pretend to be. I feel that the statement is very accurate and rings the bells on the brain. Rationalization is part of the human psyche. We even see Mary do it throughout her appearance until she is killed. Aside from Mr. Bates with his actions, Mary with the money, Sam with his debt, Lila with her coming to terms of her sister's death, the other characters (Sherriff and the detective) failed to meet this character development. And it makes me wonder why? Considering those two would be the ones to have seen some shit.
Norman was the only well-rounded character in the novel. All the others were there because it logically made sense. I think that is what I loved the most. The "psycho" was the most in-depth character we fell into, and I don't think I would have wanted it any other way. Whether we were in child eyes being berated by Norma, or in a woman's nightgown taking care of business, there was never a dull moment with him. However, I cannot say whether or not I was rooting for him, the jury will remain out on that for a while. He had the history before to be dangerous, and no one cared to give him the attention it needed. That, I feel, is truly how someone dangerous comes about to be exposed. One showing the signs with no one to care.
Oh boy, I don't know what to actually address! I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on the kinda static and flat characters, but I don't think talking *about* them is the point. I liked that your summation of the other characters was that you liked that they weren't fleshed out. I see your point and agree... to a point. It definitely helps to keep the spotlight on Norman, but that threw up red flags for me slightly different than yours.
ReplyDeleteYou and Haleigh both have criticized Bloch's handling of mental illness. While I agree with the fact that creating a distinct connection between mentally challenged and dangerous is very bad, I think his rendition was, in ways, progressive. When I think about the late 50's (really anything pre-like, 1985ish), an important consideration is not just how the subject is viewed at this time, but how DISCUSSION of the subject is handled about the subject is very important.
What I mean is: in 1958 Bloch could have written about a PSYCHO that just got out of a MENTAL INSTITUTION and now is eating bugs and flaying people in his spare time with no explanation as to why and most READERSHIP wouldn't have batted an eye. So, to say Bloch isn't a champion of differently-abled people in his portrayal may be true, but that's because nobody actually could hold that label in 1958. Up until 2025, too many people stopped at "different" and didn't bother going on to learn more.
My point is that Bloch actually brought the character of Norman back around and, just like a science fiction piece, tried to bridge the gap of the readers' suspension of disbelief. That's something old time authors didn't really give a shit about. To me, that had the initial effect that I saw him as a troubled person exacerbated by alcohol and complete and utter lack of a support group INSTEAD of a psycho. I'm starting to think I'll really have to reexamine what my definition of a Psycho is though.
I hope you aren't rooting for Norman once he's going after those useless, flat characters :-D. Being boring doesn't ACTUALLY make you deserving of death even though we all feel like that at the time.
I always root for people to die ;D I cannot lie and say I was not rooting for Norman to get away with it LOL
DeleteAlexis,
ReplyDeleteYour point about Lila being too financially unstable to reasonably wander around and travel was exactly why she turned me off. Even for the fifties, there was no way a young woman like that would have been in half the positions she found herself in. The females in this book just seemed...off. I can't explain it, but Lila especially and Sam lacked an active quality that at the very least, Mary never lacked. Mary probably had the most choice out of everybody. I agree that the right people being too passive was incredibly real, especially for the fifties.
At the same time, I agree with you that Norman was the only well-rounded character of the entire novel. I spoke on David's post that I felt the "twist" of Norman's psyche could never be hidden if we're in his head. At the same time, the joy that we were in his head was that he was so well-written and nuanced and he doesn't feel like every other psychopath I've read about. Ultimately I enjoyed this read, but the minor characters and the dated-ness of this book made it more bittersweet than anything else.
Best,
H
Yeah, for its time, as you and David both have mentioned the history of mental illness stigmas, it was decent. I still feel it was dated, as most things past a decade end up being beyond dated. AM Psycho is unfortunately not too different, just more open about the horrid mindset of our main character. BUT, people with opinions like Bateman exist so, is it really that dated?
Delete