Horror Aficionados discussion
Group Reads
>
July 2019 Group Read #1: We Have Always Lived in the Castle
date
newest »
newest »
I might suggest for anyone who's interested.....Robert Hare of Canada has done some interesting work on Psychopathy, and has even devised a test for diagnosing it...the Hare Psychopathy Test (https://www.businessinsider.com/hare-...).Some mental health professionals contend that APSD and Psychopathy are interchangeable.....Hare contends they are different disorders.
APSD is a personality disorder.....one of a dozen of so listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, currently in its 5th edition. Personality - at least when used psychologically - means an individual's way of interacting with their environment and the people in it.....generally, personality is "set" by the age of 5. Personality disorders cannot be "cured"...and some people with them will "burn out" by middle age.
Jackson's book might make for a nice double read with "The Wasp Factory"....
Really enjoyed this; it's a rather nuanced and subdued psychological horror piece rather than the more typical horror novel where the players and their associated roles are more obvious. I've also found this discussion a stimulating read, in particular this topic of 'good guy' versus 'bad guy' (or maybe better put as 'good' versus 'evil'). If it isn't already apparent, I'm not a fan of that binary interpretation of reality, as popular as it might be.And I think that is Jackson's 'point', or certainly one of her drivers. I'm only familiar with The Lottery so I can't comment on whether this is a recurring theme throughout her work, but in both of these stories we have this 'mob as monster' device at play; she does a brilliant job of making the mass of what might be perfectly 'normal' and 'good' folks come-off as miserable and frightening as any more formal evil incarnation.
What I was most impressed by was her skill at making the two sisters genuinely sympathetic figures: the loving bond between the two was undeniable and absolutely defied the 'psycopath/sociopath' pigeon hole. I recognize there is this legal versus science community distinction that perhaps makes the question still a valid one, but I've always felt like the entire notion of these pathologies is an attempt by people to compartmentalize behavior they don't want to allow might be more a product of context and environment, as this is uncomfortable for obvious reasons...and we are back at what I "think" is one of Jackson's motivations...to play with this superficially obvious distinction and to watch it fall apart under scrutiny. To reiterate, however, I felt genuine empathy for these two, bringing a smile to my face on more than one occasion when their joint history of pretty awful conspiracy 'should' have mitigated this one might think (and this is without trying to come up with a 'valid' motivation for the poisoning...I never felt compelled to figure that bit out).
As far as the 'why' regarding the initial act at the center of this story (or is it really the core?), the strength of this type of tale comes from precisely that opaqueness: fun to speculate, but, ultimately no right or wrong answer here. I found myself less interested in this than I guess i thought I should be? I was more focused on the 'what next' regarding the sister in question.
In the end, possibly disappointment for many readers, but I don't see how it could have played out any other way without feeling cheapened somehow. For example, (view spoiler) This might have felt like a better closure, but would have felt a bit too obvious and a bit of a cheat I think.
Regardless, great discussion.
Quick comment on that notion of 'cure' mentioned in the previous post as it is a funny concept at best, and probably doesn't belong in the text of an ostensibly 'scientific' document (of course that opens up another can of worms as well lol). The lay-public loves the word 'cure' but medically speaking it is much more vague in terms of what it really means...with cancer I suspect for most survivors it means 'at the moment, no sign of metastastic disease and the primary is 'gone' etc. But whether it's a broken bone or a courageous traversal of chemo and surgery and whatever else is involved, there are most certainly scars, both literal and figurative. So this notion that there is something resembling a 'cure' for any of the mental health ailments mentioned in the DSM V, I would argue, is inadequate and, at worst, pandering to someone in marketing.
I guess I'm averse to the matter of fact way the medical community can dismiss the development of personality at some arbitrary cut-off point and/or attempt to isolate 'it' in the first place; it is still a very 'soft' science (and I don't mean to disparage it by pointing that out, it is simply the nature of the thing being studied).
And please don't take this as an attack on your specific comment, merely commenting on the psych community and doctors more generally...I finished 3 years of med school and dropped out...but rubbed shoulders with medicine enough to get a sense of a certain arrogance and/or willful ignorance that persists...a bit of a chip on my shoulder at times.
Again, great conversation!
ha well, I got in late because I was waiting on a library hold. But I did read it, and I have to say that I really liked it. I thought it was sad. Merricat and Constance both seemed a bit traumatized to me throughout the whole book. I'm glad this was the read for this month! uh.. last month ;-)
When I've reread this book, I've found myself being more interested in Constance than Merricat. (view spoiler)[The first time I read it, I found horror in not knowing what Merricat was capable of doing. Without the suspense, I think more about how Constance is entirely dependent on Merricat even though Merricat is the reason that Constance does not leave the house. Merricat is the reason that she is essentially a prisoner but she's also the only person she feels like she can rely on. It is sad, but I also find it horrifying. (hide spoiler)]