Reading the Chunksters discussion
This topic is about
Seven Types of Ambiguity
Archive 2015: Literary Readathon
>
Seven Types of Ambiguity - Part One
date
newest »
newest »
So first and foremost I would have to say that this psychologist is really not a good psychologist. Does anybody know for sure if the psychologist was male or female? I was picturing male but then I realized that I don't actually remember it stating so and I don't see why there would have been a reason.From the beginning I thought that this had a crazy stalker feel. What was weird - actually there was a lot weird - was that Simon seemed to pull other people into his obsession. You have a guy who can't get over a woman after 10 years and he turns his psychologist to his side. To the point that I feel the psychologist's letter was accusatory and even at times threatening. It was a passive aggressive threat, but I really felt that.
During the bizarre scene where the psychologist first meets Simon in the backyard of this poor woman's house, there were two sentences that caught my eye. We Europeans are instinctively better hostss, whether we have personality disorders or not and two pages later He could have offered me at least an iced tea. Two things here. What is his obsession with being offered a drink? And is he trying to say he has a personality disorder?
This situation is further tangled by Angelique's involvement with the mysterious woman's husband. At the reference to a brothel, I checked to see about prostitution's legality in Australia. It is legal in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and partially in the Northern Territories. So we have Angelique tangled up with the husband and then we have yet another interesting situation. This man is cheating on his wife with a prostitute and she actually believes all of this stuff that he's saying about how awful his wife is? Is this because she has a vested interest in it being true? Because otherwise she's one gullible prostitute.
On page 20 we have kind of an interesting paragraph. Maybe that was what William was wondering as he watched you? The door wasn't completely closed. We know you did not know this. Obviously it was an accident, not an invitation, but it enabled William to watch you there. And through the accident of the open door and the disposition of the light, the silhouettes of both of you were visible to Simon when his car pulled up. He saw you looking out of the window and he saw William watching you; everything was still, and no one hurried to see less Why is William watching her? And why did Simon pull up with his headlights on? Wouldn't she see this? And why in the world to we now have four people stalking this woman?
The situation that Simon was in with the boy who disappeared from school was absolutely tragic. I can't even imagine going through something like that. He seemed to have such high hopes for helping his students. But then, this guy isn't exactly stable, is he?
Then there's this creepy notion of inventing yourselves as adults in each other's image Why does Simon think that they're identical in nature? It's completely baffling. And how does someone spend ten years not getting over a breakup? Ten years!
When the psych says I wanted him to like me, not for his treatment - well, not only I'm assuming this is because he/she is falling in love with the client? But then the psych goes on to assure us of his or her impartiality. Why?
One more thing and don't tell me children can't be depressed, or have you forgotten everything? This implies that the psychologist knows her. Or is he getting this from Simon?
In all, I think this was an intriguing, if baffling, section. I did enjoy it but it's kind of crazy too. I think the weirdest thing (how do you even pick?) is that Simon is able to get other people to stalk her as well. Or at the very least develop an obsession with her. Strange and fascinating and I can't wait to get to the next piece.
I completely fell into this book! I've seriously had trouble putting it down.I think the psychologist mentions that Simon never offered a drink only to illustrate that something felt a bit "off" about the meeting. It was a hint that something was out of place... and, as it turns out, they were trespassing. Surprise!
I love where this book is going.
Right now, I have a firm impression of what each character will be like. Yet we know so little at this point. We only know what the Psychologist wants us to know. who in turn, only knows what Simon wants to share. And as for the husband, most of what we know has been filtered through Angel.
I read the first chapter in one big gulp yesterday and really really find it quite intriguing. The shrink is hilarious in his/her incompetency, his/her self-indulgence and his/her cluelessness. Unfortunately, this ineptitude is hilarious only for us, not for Simon. I really cannot see how a psychiatrist can be so unprofessional. I believe this is not the whole truth, but one of those ambiguities.
On a personal note, I enjoyed the literary allusions, and the lines from T.S. Eliot's The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and Other Poems convey with precision, the feeling of devastation, despair, emptiness, and indecisiveness.
I find it ironic how the shrink (excuse my slang) tries to impress the addressee by quoting and summarizing the theories by Maslow and other psychiatrists and psychologists as if he or she is trying to validate his/her account.
P.S. As you mentioned Sarah, the gender ambiguity of the narrator in this section is very salient. I wonder whether it is deliberate. There are some small hints that it might be a she.
I love this book already! I had to force myself to stop after this weeks part. Ok this psychologist, omg, worst shrink ever. The gender question is interesting. When I was reading it I never considered the psychologist to be anything other than male but looking back over the chapters I'm not so sure why I thought that. I definitely think that ambiguity is intentional. The shrink is clearly unstable and I'm not sure how reliable of a narrator. I gather each part has a different POV so I'm curious if we'll ever know what the truth is. I'm very excited to see where this goes.
This is excellent so far. I found myself thinking about the story for most of the work day, and just now finished part one. The shrink talks about clinical depression, which can be baffling. And dysfunctional parents (all the parents in the story), and alcohol addiction, and lying and deceit... Or is Simon just a straight-up sociopath? All of them have some seriously dysfunctional attributes. So much to consider after just 50 pages in!
How did the police find him so quickly after he took Sam? Wasn't it just a few hours?I also thought the psychologist was male. Then it just kind of struck me that I didn't remember anyone saying that.
I was unsure but landed on male, just.because his/her wife recently left. But, yeah, could still be a female I suppose. if gay marriage is legal.
I was baffled by how quickly they found Sam too Sarah. It was only a few hours. Must be be more pieces to that.
Wasn't Angelique sobbing quietly right before the police showed up? Maybe she notified the police.
I don't know why, but I wanted the narrator to be female. However, because he had a wife mentioned in the last sentence of chapter 2: 'My wife and I have recently separated' , I am quite certain it is a he. I had to remind myself that all the time when trying to visualize some of the scenes.I really liked the very last sentence : 'I nearly called you last night' . To me this implied that the entire story was a monologue and the psychologist just talked to himself. Or am I wrong? At first I thought he was talking to the stalked woman.
Also, there is a symmetry to the entire fragment, because the first chapter began with 'He nearly called you again last night' (referring to Simon probably using his single call opportunity. Instead, he phoned the psychologist).
Rather than a monologue, I thought it was a letter the stalked woman.
I thought it was a letter too but now I'm not sure. I think I'm going to read the section again this afternoon :)
That's a good plan. I think it was right after Simon was arrested that he mentioned it. Or she. That's confusing.
Great opening post, Sarah! This novel really pulled me in and I had to stop myself from reading ahead. Actually, I did read into the first chapter of Part II, but then I REALLY had to stop myself! Assuming each part is going to be told from a different person's POV, I had to satisfy my curiosity in who would be relating the next part.Anyway, back to Part I. I guess I am with everyone else here in assuming the psychologist was male, even before s/he said their wife left them. Still, that bit of information of having a wife does not solidify that the psychologist is a male.
I also found the psychologist being stuck on not being offered a drink odd behavior. I mean, this meeting was supposed to be a professional meeting, it just happened not to be in his office. I also caught the "we" in "even if we have personality disorders", wondering if the psychologist himself has some disorder? Is that why he was obsessing over the drink, obsessing over wanting Simon to like him, and then getting caught up in Simon's stalking behavior?
The boy missing at school was heart wrenching. And to have Simon so enthusiastic about teaching and being loved by all his students and parents...or so we are told at least. I wonder how Simon's teaching will be portrayed by the other narrators down the road? Perhaps he was not such a great teacher as we are led to believe in this first part?
I also wondered how the police showed up so quickly. Kristen might be onto something with Angelique's behavior and perhaps she was the one to call them?
And finally, while reading this part, I wondered if this was supposed to be a letter to Simon's ex, or perhaps the psychologist was talking and recording it? It was rather odd and I couldn't figure it out.
I've discovered that there are two assumptions I've made, which has made me feel like the narrator is perfectly reliable and I'm not :) One is the gender of the psychologist and the other was that I could have sworn that it said that s/he was writing a letter to the woman. I went back and scoured that section and it absolutely does not mention that. How many other assumptions did I make? It's strange.I was glancing through info on Amazon and it gave the psychiatrist's name. Unfortunately, it was a gender neutral name!
Another thing I remember thinking while reading Part I. How we are told how much everyone likes Simon - his students, the parents (especially the women...), the psychologist wants Simon to like him. Simon seems to be so likeable that even as he starts these stalking behaviors, I felt like I didn't want to not like him. But, when he went so far as to lure Sam with the classic child luring tactics we are all told about - "don't worry, I'm a friend of your parents", "do you like ice cream?", etc - I was jolted by recognizing those warning signs. And that there is something seriously wrong with this situation. Of course we know, well as far as we are told at this point, that Sam was OK and that no harm came to him. But I'm thinking, how far would things have gone if Simon had not been caught right away? Even if Simon had the best intentions (whatever those would be in the case of abducting a child), who knows what would have happened in the future? A permanent abduction? Simon thinking that he is the best person to raise Sam? Who knows what's going on inside this guy's head?
Wow. You're absolutely right. I didn't notice those particular phrases and I just realized that I kept thinking that Simon wouldn't hurt Sam. Like it was not that big of a deal because Simon was harmless and nice.
Linda wrote: "Another thing I remember thinking while reading Part I. How we are told how much everyone likes Simon - his students, the parents (especially the women...), the psychologist wants Simon to like him..."I kept wondering if we can really trust this! We are sure that the psychiatrist is taken in, but otherwise what do we really know? Perhaps Simon is delusional, or sociopathic, and has mislead a not-so-stellar psychiatrist. There's something about Simon's description that just doesn't ring true to me.
Something is very wrong with it. Normal people don't stalk their ex for ten years. But it's not just the psych, who very well may be infatuated with him, that he sucks in. There's the scene where William is apparently watching her and Angel is doing a third hand stalking. He meets people and twists their thinking somehow. Is it the type of people he meets? Or are we really getting a warped picture where the psych is trying to justify his behavior? I also don't buy Angel meeting the husband by accident.
Sarah wrote: "I also don't buy Angel meeting the husband by accident."I had not thought of this possibility, but you're right. Nothing that has been related to us can be trusted. To have Simon's ex girlfriend's husband just happen to be a client of Angel seems like a huge coincidence.
E :) wrote: "I kept wondering if we can really trust this!"Yeah, and to go along with that, I wondered if we can really trust that Simon was as great a teacher as we are led to believe.
I don't think we can trust much of anything at this point. I absolutely can't wait to see how this all plays out.
I also realized that I thought he wouldn't harm the boy and that the parents didn't totally matter because they were lousy parents. I realized yesterday that we only have Simon's word that they're bad parents. What if the pool near-drowning didn't even happen?
Sarah wrote: "What if the pool near-drowning didn't even happen?"Now you just blew my mind. lol. I don't know what to think anymore! I can tell this is going to be a book I will look forward to reading each week.
Linda wrote: "E :) wrote: "I kept wondering if we can really trust this!"Yeah, and to go along with that, I wondered if we can really trust that Simon was as great a teacher as we are led to believe."
Good question! At this point I have more questions than answers :) I'm looking forward to diving into Part II in a few days.
Zulfiya wrote: "I really cannot see how a psychiatrist can be so unprofessional. I believe this is not the whole truth, but one of those ambiguities."I agree. It appears to me the psychiatrist is very defensive when it comes to Simon but I can't go as far as accusing him (I believe the psychiatrist is male) of having no objectivity whatsoever. I can imagine him having a smirk on his face when he says, "You would love the way he sees you."
This whole section just creeped me out. it reminds me a lot of the my feelings while watching Sunset Boulevard. I did at first pity Simon during the abduction case but the way he behaved with Sam made me question everything related to thatarrative as well. I just don't know what to believe at this point.
Linda wrote: "E :) wrote: "I kept wondering if we can really trust this!"Yeah, and to go along with that, I wondered if we can really trust that Simon was as great a teacher as we are led to believe."
Zulfiya wrote: "I read the first chapter in one big gulp yesterday and really really find it quite intriguing. The shrink is hilarious in his/her incompetency, his/her self-indulgence and his/her cluelessness. Un..."
Sarah wrote: "So first and foremost I would have to say that this psychologist is really not a good psychologist. Does anybody know for sure if the psychologist was male or female? I was picturing male but the..."
This man is cheating on his wife with a prostitute and she actually believes all of this stuff that he's saying about how awful his wife is? Is this because she has a vested interest in it being true?
Whether or not if she does, or doesn't...She's a prostitute who's time has been bought by this man to serve whatever purpose. It is her job to be convincing and that includes pacifying the man. I don't think it matters if she believes him, I think it matters how she's using this information to manipulate Simon...To a certain extent.
Why is William watching her? And why did Simon pull up with his headlights on? Wouldn't she see this? I'm confused, I thought the house in Sorrento belonged to Simon's family...Weren't they all there for the summer? If this is the case, then Simon driving up to his house with the lights on would be reasonable. Also, William watching Simon's girlfriend...A beautiful naked woman seen through an open window...Show me a man with a pulse who wouldn't look at that?
Then there's this creepy notion of inventing yourselves as adults in each other's image Why does Simon think that they're identical in nature? It's completely baffling. And how does someone spend ten years not getting over a breakup? Ten years!
I didn't think this was creepy at all, in fact, it took me back to Ernest Hemingway's The Garden of Eden where sexual transference and the roles of women and men being one within the other are explored and how seeing this validates the existence of one in the other. Simon and his girlfriend, from what he describes of their relationship is one of those relationships where he recognizes himself in her. It substantiates his existence...She validates him...He is seen. Does this make sense? Gosh, I know 10 years sounds silly, but sometimes it's possible to still burn a candle for somebody even when you're no longer with them. In Simon's case, it sounds as if he lacks real closure...IDK? It's one thing to silently pine, but when those emotions are put into action i.e.following and stalking; that's where I draw the line.
When the psych says I wanted him to like me, not for his treatment - well, not only I'm assuming this is because he/she is falling in love with the client? But then the psych goes on to assure us of his or her impartiality. Why?...What is his obsession with being offered a drink? And is he trying to say he has a personality disorder?
I didn't get a homoerotic feel for this at all, I thought he was just really taken by how charming Simon could be...Who isn't charmed by Simon,everybody likes him? Granted, Simon's poor hosting skills burst this bubble, don't you think for the Dr. ? I too was taken aback by the Dr.'s obsession with not being offered a beverage at Simon's house. My exact note was "Is this guy really parched, or disappointed in "his" assessment of the attributes he was so taken with in Simon?
One more thing and don't tell me children can't be depressed, or have you forgotten everything? This implies that the psychologist knows her. Or is he getting this from Simon?
Well, this is the thing I don't understand...Why is he divulging so much information to her? Whatever happened to Doctor/patient confidentiality, it doesn't seem to exist for him. To your question, I want to believe it was Simon who said something to him about her, he is Simon's psychiatrist, after all. But, in the quote you pulled, the tone is so as a matter of fact and informal, I would think there is a tie between him and Simon's ex...He is too familiar in his approach with her. Now confusing things even more, this Dr. doesn't seem to really practice with any real medical ethics, at least none that I can see, so maybe he his just being consistent when he addresses Simon's ex which would direct us back to the original thought...It was Simon who divulged information about her past to the Dr. and the Dr. is regurgitating it back to her.
I really cannot see how a psychiatrist can be so unprofessional. I believe this is not the whole truth, but one of those ambiguities.
Thank you! I'm so glad you addressed him as a psychiatrist and not a psychologist...There's a distinction between the two professions and it's subtly noted in the narrative, which I thought was interesting. Mental health therapies and practices have greatly changed in the last 20 years, but I have yet to hear about an encounter with a psychiatrist who spends as much time as this good Dr. does with Simon. I would think a psychiatrist would begin to chart a pharmacological therapy for Simon, but this Dr. hasn't written one prescription yet, and the good Dr. fails to offer any advice to Simon saying, It's not my role, not professionally.
I find it ironic how the shrink (excuse my slang) tries to impress the addressee by quoting and summarizing the theories by Maslow and other psychiatrists and psychologists as if he or she is trying to validate his/her account.
Yes, I noticed this too...As if it were an affirmation to Simon's ex he was legitimate...Was he trying to sell her as well?
Yeah, and to go along with that, I wondered if we can really trust that Simon was as great a teacher as we are led to believe.
If we're on the same page as to the narrator of Part I being the psychiatrist, then I think Simon was a great teacher. I question the Dr.'s approach to treating Simon because I don't think he is treating him, not his ability to treat him in view of the fact that the Dr. is very proficient within his field.
Linda wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I also don't buy Angel meeting the husband by accident."I had not thought of this possibility, but you're right. Nothing that has been related to us can be trusted. To have Simon'..."
Sarah wrote: "Something is very wrong with it. Normal people don't stalk their ex for ten years. But it's not just the psych, who very well may be infatuated with him, that he sucks in. There's the scene where W..."
Sarah wrote: "I've discovered that there are two assumptions I've made, which has made me feel like the narrator is perfectly reliable and I'm not :) One is the gender of the psychologist and the other was that..."
Linda wrote: "Another thing I remember thinking while reading Part I. How we are told how much everyone likes Simon - his students, the parents (especially the women...), the psychologist wants Simon to like him..."
Simon seems to be so likeable that even as he starts these stalking behaviors, I felt like I didn't want to not like him.
Yes, this is so true of Simon. Even after he begins stalking his ex and then the child, I didn't dislike him, I just felt really sorry for him. He has completely unfolded in front of both a Dr., and his live in prostitute, and neither do anything to help him. In fact, I thought they actually enabled him instead. I will laugh, if later, we find out Angel and the Dr. were in cahoots with one another from the get go. LOL!
To have Simon's ex girlfriend's husband just happen to be a client of Angel seems like a huge coincidence.
Yes, but I would have been livid if she was just a filler-type character...It just adds more intrigue into the plot line for me. LoL!
One is the gender of the psychologist and the other was that I could have sworn that it said that s/he was writing a letter to the woman.
I thought it was a male voice and glad of it. I think it would have given me a case of the "fantods" had this narrator been a woman, it would have made me very uncomfortable, for the lack of ethics alone. It's harder for me to read about women with questionable ethics, especially if they are in a position held to a standard by a community, I think I must hold them in higher regard... On some spectrum.
Normal people don't stalk their ex for ten years.
You're right, they don't, but Simon has become completely unhinged and drinking heavily, he has a manipulating live-in prostitute/friend, and in the care of a Dr., who doesn't seem to really be caring for him (diagnosing from afar)...He has some major issues, he's not "normal," currently.
There's the scene where William is apparently watching her and Angel is doing a third hand stalking. He meets people and twists their thinking somehow.
How is he "twisting their thinking?" William and May both liked the ex on their own accord. From what it sounds like, his ex doesn't really need to be sold by anybody, her presence alone speaks for itself...Doesn't it? I don't see Simon as being so diabolical, Sarah. He's frail and deflecting his childhood insecurities onto his ex's child. When did Angel stalk the ex girlfriend, I don't recall?
Or are we really getting a warped picture where the psych is trying to justify his behavior?
No, i find the narrator/psychiatrist to be credible throughout this first part. Is it so much justifying Simon's behavior than it is to make sense of the behavior, or finding reason for the behavior. Thats what he does for a living...Cause and Effect?
Yes, but I would have been livid if she was just a filler-type character...It just adds more intrigue into the plot line for me. LoL!This is very true. I hadn't thought about it but that would be irritating.
How is he "twisting their thinking?"
I don't mean he's doing it on purpose by any means. But he's stalking her, which should be frowned on, and then we have William stalking her at one point (I didn't realize this was when he and Anna were together. Did Simon learn from William?), and then we have Angel gathering information from Joe and passing it on. Which is what I meant by her stalking. It's a bit strange that people are following in Simon's footsteps rather than telling him to stop.
I didn't think this was creepy at all
I think this is odd because normal, healthy adults should have their own identity rather than this bizarre co-dependence.
I'm so glad you addressed him as a psychiatrist and not a psychologist
This was something that I struggled with. I was initially thinking of him as a psychiatrist but he seemed to be treating Simon with therapy rather than meds. So then I was leaning towards psychologist. This actually made me a bit crazy!
Sarah wrote: "Yes, but I would have been livid if she was just a filler-type character...It just adds more intrigue into the plot line for me. LoL!This is very true. I hadn't thought about it but that would b..."
I don't mean he's doing it on purpose by any means. But he's stalking her, which should be frowned on, and then we have William stalking her at one point (I didn't realize this was when he and Anna were together.
On absolutely, I agree about the stalking ...It's terrible Simon's come to this point.
Did Simon learn from William?),
No, Simon saw it happen. On pages 19-20, the psychiatrist is telling Simon's ex, I think you might know something about this from Sorrento, from that time at the beach house. Do you...? Simon had taken the car to buy a few things before the shops closed. May was in the kitchen. You had just taken a shower...You were in the midst of putting on a change of clothes for the evening and you looked out the window to watch the sunset...Were you planning to leave? Maybe that was what William was wondering as he watched you? The door wasn't completely closed...Obviously, it was an accident, not an invitation, but it enabled William to watch you and there. And through the accident of the open door and the disposition of the light, the silhouettes of both of you were visible to Simon when his car pulled up. He saw you looking out of the window and he saw William watching you; everything was still, and no one hurried to see less.
and then we have Angel gathering information from Joe and passing it on. Which is what I meant by her stalking. It's a bit strange that people are following in Simon's footsteps rather than telling him to stop.
I see. As for people following in Simon's footsteps...Enablers-All of them. The psychiatrist, I'm most dumbfounded by. Angelique, I understand.
This was something that I struggled with. I was initially thinking of him as a psychiatrist but he seemed to be treating Simon with therapy rather than meds. So then I was leaning towards psychologist. This actually made me a bit crazy!
But is he treating him with therapy...I think they're hanging out and this Dr. who is paid to help Simon is instead watching his patient unravel right before his eyes not doing a thing about it? This book would make such an amazing movie, wouldn't it?
Something else I noticed while scouring for the "William Peeping-Tom" quote... I noticed in section 8 (page 20), the psychiatrist says, The new government decided to stimulate the economy by terminating the employment of thousands and thousands of teachers. You may remember this. Your husband and William voted for them.I understand how he would know "William voted for them" (via Simon, or maybe even directly from Walter?), but how would he know how the ex's "husband's" voted?
No, Simon saw it happenYeah, I'm wondering if seeing this scene is what turned Simon's attention in the direction of watching and stalking rather than moving on.
Angelique, I understand
I'm torn on this one. She is providing Simon with something that only she can do and is therefore of value to him if she helps, but then she's also feeding his obsession.
But is he treating him with therapy
That was the problem with trying to pick one or the other. It was like he was learning about Simon and that was it. No therapy, talk or drug. It was really strange.
As for the Joe's voting trends, I'm completely baffled. There's no way he could legally know this that I can think of. Maybe there's some record keeping that he has access to? I can't imagine laws are that different in Australia.
Sarah wrote: "No, Simon saw it happenYeah, I'm wondering if seeing this scene is what turned Simon's attention in the direction of watching and stalking rather than moving on.
Angelique, I understand
I'm tor..."
Maybe there's some record keeping that he has access to? I can't imagine laws are that different in Australia.
Sarah, I thought they voted in a national election type situation; therefore, the votes wouldn't be available for public record. I'm thinking Joe too must have been a patient of the doctor's...IDK?
I don't think the votes would be public either. This is a bit like his comment to Anna about her past depression. Like this all knowing POV. It's strange. And we won't know if the Dr was treating Joe because the narrative is moving forward. Totally exasperating. Maybe William and Joe know each other? If they both voted one way, they may have been working together to achieve that. And now I'm totally reaching.
Sarah wrote: "I don't think the votes would be public either. This is a bit like his comment to Anna about her past depression. Like this all knowing POV. It's strange. And we won't know if the Dr was treati..."No, I'm saying maybe he treated him in the past...This is all speculation, of course. Right, Anna's depression, I thought was on account of the association with Simon. But if Joe was a patient, previously, then he too could account for the information on Anna? Again, pure speculation. :)
Reading the Chunksters
Books mentioned in this topic
The Garden of Eden (other topics)The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and Other Poems (other topics)
Seven Types of Ambiguity (other topics)
I declare the discussion for Seven Types of Ambiguity open! Let's have some fun.