Kreizler introduces the reader to another school of thought (academic) as he proposes his theory that people’s actions are motivated by events that took place during their childhood. To convince the reader of this argument, Carr creates characters like Stevie, Cyrus, and Mary Palmer, all who work for Kreizler now. They all had difficult childhoods which they acted out against later on, committing heinous crimes. They were vindicated as a result of Kreizler’s help and mental evaluation of them.
While on an outing with Mary, the narrator John attempts to discover why the beautiful seemingly sweet Mary would chain her father to the bed and set the house on fire. It was known she had a severe speech problem, hindering her from communicating, which frustrated her. After placing her in an asylum, Kreizler discovered that Mary wasn’t crazy but was sexually abused by her father and acted out as a result. Not being able to talk, or read and write since her parents didn’t teach her, thinking she wasn’t capable of such a thing, she set the house on fire killing him. Still John forced himself, as Kreizler encouraged (to the reader as well), to delve deeper and attempt to understand why she did this when it’s not uncommon to be abused and other victims don’t set fire to their abusers.
As a result, in a way Carr challenges thoughts and forces the reader to make distinctions sanity and insanity while examining the childhoods of the characters, especially that of the kids. Kreizler concludes the killer in this story is indeed sane and acted because he had “vengeance for the child he had been [and] protection for the tortured soul he had become.” He also found it imperative to get the female perspective on the case—Sara’s viewpoint. He wanted her to help “create…a woman (or series of women) who might have helped foster such rage” in the killer to make him act.
This is academic because it not only teaches the reader a new concept (well perhaps not that new since it may be obvious to some) while being enveloped in a mystery, but also because it allows the reader to better analyze things, especially people, and even his/her own life, perhaps learning something new about themselves.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Hazy Truth
Another interesting aspect of this novel is how it presents “the truth.” On the one hand, Carr is like a muckraker exposing the issue of male prostitution. It’s very sad and makes me wonder if this really happened (Carr makes me think the story is based on true facts). At the same time, there is also the theme that newspapers don’t report the truth, which Carr presents as being wrong, since only certain papers will publish certain stories. This hinders the people from knowing the truth and further helps breed corruption within the government. For example The New York Times, the paper John works for, won’t cover the gruesome Santorelli murder; however, there might be one paper in the city/state of New York that might.
When Steffens finally publishes a story on it however, Roosevelt and Kreizler are angry because they don’t want the story exposed to the people—because it might cause an uprising in the immigrant community (since immigrant boys are being targeted) and because the murderer might figure out that the police are slowly piecing the clues together and linking the many murders (as they continue to occur; basically they’re right on his trail). By keeping information from the public, the government is still not being truthful to the people. This gives an academic element again because it suggests that during this time period, certain issues were not published for everybody to see and learn about. Instead the people were “kept in the dark.”
This academic element parallels another—Kreizler’s quest to find the truth about his patients and discover their mental state. He does this by analyzing patients and determining patients’ whether they’re insane or not based on years of research. He attempts to find motives for why this person (presumed to be a male, 6 foot 2 inches who is a customer of the boy prostitutes) would kill innocent boys. Kreizler believes that as a result of his childhood, the man is responding this way. He advances the point that people are ruled by what happened to them as a child.
When Steffens finally publishes a story on it however, Roosevelt and Kreizler are angry because they don’t want the story exposed to the people—because it might cause an uprising in the immigrant community (since immigrant boys are being targeted) and because the murderer might figure out that the police are slowly piecing the clues together and linking the many murders (as they continue to occur; basically they’re right on his trail). By keeping information from the public, the government is still not being truthful to the people. This gives an academic element again because it suggests that during this time period, certain issues were not published for everybody to see and learn about. Instead the people were “kept in the dark.”
This academic element parallels another—Kreizler’s quest to find the truth about his patients and discover their mental state. He does this by analyzing patients and determining patients’ whether they’re insane or not based on years of research. He attempts to find motives for why this person (presumed to be a male, 6 foot 2 inches who is a customer of the boy prostitutes) would kill innocent boys. Kreizler believes that as a result of his childhood, the man is responding this way. He advances the point that people are ruled by what happened to them as a child.
Still Academic Without An Academic Setting?
In Part I of The Alienist, called “The Perception,” I noticed that this novel piqued my interests more than the other two. I don’t know why but it just seems more interesting. Perhaps it’s because Carr integrates historical content into the story or because it involves murder a great deal more than the other two(—not to mention the topic of male prostitution which I can never remembering coming across before).
Having said this, there are still glaring similarities between this academic mystery novel and the others. To continue from my previous post, there is officially a pattern now of the main character breaking off an engagement, being involved in an academic mystery, and finding love in the end, I think. (There is a pattern since this occurs in a third book. Somewhere I read, or heard perhaps on an episode of “Law and Order” or “Snapped,” that if an incident occurs twice it is considered to be a coincidence. However, three times establishes a pattern.) This is most likely the case since secretary to the Police Commissioner (Roosevelt) Sara Howard is introduced. She is one of the first women to work for the NY Police Department, but secretly aspires to be a detective, which is considered and inappropriate job for woman during this time. The narrator John relays to the reader that after his engagement ended, he asked Sara, “an old friend” (just like Wimsey to Harriet and Reed to Kate) to marry him while he was a bit drunk. Although “her answer was to [him] in a cab to the Hudson River and throw [him] in,” the potential for a relationship has been established, especially since the two are working on the case together.
This brings me to another point that in contrast to the other two novels, there are a great deal of people working to solve the murder mystery of Georgio (A.K.A. Gloria, his female name) Santorelli and its connection to similar murders of young boys involved in male prostitution years before (people including the three friends, Sara, and the Issacson brothers, both detectives). Doing so could help get a heartless murderer off of the streets. The other novels focused on the main character and a couple others trying to solve the case and didn’t try to find a murderer/perpetrator of this magnitude. Furthermore, there has yet to be a suspect targeted in this case unlike the others. Usually there are potential leads, but so far this book has gone in depth in analyzing the mind (and motives) of a person who could commit such unspeakable murders and attempting to understand the victim’s past, giving the novel an academic perspective.
This academic aspect is certainly also revealed through the historical facts included in the novel, as well as mentioning novels like Riis’s How the Other Half Lives. By including history, the reader is able to learn, thus like they would be able to do in an academic setting (despite the fact that this book makes no reference to academic settings, which I previously assumed helped categorized an academic mystery novel; then again Kreizler has his own Institute in which he considers his mental patient kids to be students…). For example, I’ve learned more about an alienist’s job, corruption, graft, and male prostitution during the late 1800s, and various methods of detective work. It was also very interesting to learn how fingerprinting (dactyloscopy) was not accepted as evidence confirming that a person committed a crime or was at the crime scene. It’s a fact taken for granted today I guess since cases can be solved fairly quickly if fingerprints are involved, unlike during these times when people were murdered and their murderer was never punished.
Having said this, there are still glaring similarities between this academic mystery novel and the others. To continue from my previous post, there is officially a pattern now of the main character breaking off an engagement, being involved in an academic mystery, and finding love in the end, I think. (There is a pattern since this occurs in a third book. Somewhere I read, or heard perhaps on an episode of “Law and Order” or “Snapped,” that if an incident occurs twice it is considered to be a coincidence. However, three times establishes a pattern.) This is most likely the case since secretary to the Police Commissioner (Roosevelt) Sara Howard is introduced. She is one of the first women to work for the NY Police Department, but secretly aspires to be a detective, which is considered and inappropriate job for woman during this time. The narrator John relays to the reader that after his engagement ended, he asked Sara, “an old friend” (just like Wimsey to Harriet and Reed to Kate) to marry him while he was a bit drunk. Although “her answer was to [him] in a cab to the Hudson River and throw [him] in,” the potential for a relationship has been established, especially since the two are working on the case together.
This brings me to another point that in contrast to the other two novels, there are a great deal of people working to solve the murder mystery of Georgio (A.K.A. Gloria, his female name) Santorelli and its connection to similar murders of young boys involved in male prostitution years before (people including the three friends, Sara, and the Issacson brothers, both detectives). Doing so could help get a heartless murderer off of the streets. The other novels focused on the main character and a couple others trying to solve the case and didn’t try to find a murderer/perpetrator of this magnitude. Furthermore, there has yet to be a suspect targeted in this case unlike the others. Usually there are potential leads, but so far this book has gone in depth in analyzing the mind (and motives) of a person who could commit such unspeakable murders and attempting to understand the victim’s past, giving the novel an academic perspective.
This academic aspect is certainly also revealed through the historical facts included in the novel, as well as mentioning novels like Riis’s How the Other Half Lives. By including history, the reader is able to learn, thus like they would be able to do in an academic setting (despite the fact that this book makes no reference to academic settings, which I previously assumed helped categorized an academic mystery novel; then again Kreizler has his own Institute in which he considers his mental patient kids to be students…). For example, I’ve learned more about an alienist’s job, corruption, graft, and male prostitution during the late 1800s, and various methods of detective work. It was also very interesting to learn how fingerprinting (dactyloscopy) was not accepted as evidence confirming that a person committed a crime or was at the crime scene. It’s a fact taken for granted today I guess since cases can be solved fairly quickly if fingerprints are involved, unlike during these times when people were murdered and their murderer was never punished.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Differences Between Who Solves the Mystery?
To answer your question, I think that a mystery being solved by a detective is more suspenseful than that of one being solved by a psychiatrist. The reason I say this is that the detective is willing to embark on journeys and be put in dangerous situations in order to track down the culprit. On the other hand, the psychiatrist is more likely to analyze the situation thoroughly before doing anything. He/she tries to think about what the culprit would do and what motivates him/her to commit the crimes accused of; ultimately, the psychiatrist analyzes the human mind. For example, Detective Lord Peter Wimsey (Gaudy Night) comes to Shrewsbury College when Harriet calls, risking his life in the process, in order to speak to the suspects and look at the evidence in hopes of finding the culprit. Similarly, Detective Reed (In the Last Analysis) brings evidence to Kate, who then analyzes it (because of her knowledge of psychoanalysis, from her friend Emanuel) and interviews people. It’s ultimately her thinking in the end that leads them to solving the mystery.
If anybody has any other ideas about this, they would be greatly appreciated!
If anybody has any other ideas about this, they would be greatly appreciated!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Teaming Up at the Crime Scene
The narrator begins to tell his story, going back to New York City in 1896. He, John Moore, is a police reporter for the New York Times, which is once against suggestive of the academic aspect since reporters write articles and it’s apparent that some form of schooling was involved. Living with his grandmother, having broken off an engagement two years earlier, Moore is awakened at two in the morning by Stevie, his friend Kreizler’s errand boy, to go to a crime scene. (side comment: Why do the main characters of these novels always have bad luck with love and seem to have just ended a relationship? Is it because these novels involve them finding new love? Gaudy Night’s Harriet supposedly murdered her last husband/lover while In the Last Analysis’s Kate ended a relationship before Janet’s murder. However, in the end, both found love (detectives). Is this in store for John Moore as well?)
At the crime scene, Moore sees an indescribable sight: a badly injured dead man that left people thinking “what had been done to the body.” Apparently the body was carved up very badly and body parts were removed, giving the impression of an obscene and grotesque picture. Theodore Roosevelt was already at the scene since at this time he was the NY Police Commissioner. Kreizler, who had already left, was “the eminent physician and alienist” (doctor who specializes in the treatment of mental illness). To me it’s clear that these three have emerged as a team. Together they will solve the case, which will be interesting since all three will be discovering new leads and shedding light on the case and evidence they’ve found. This team contrasts the other two novels since in those, the reader mostly followed the main character who only presented her views and progress on the case. As a result, I might be able to compare the advantages and disadvantages of having more people on a case and determine how this “fits in” with the genre.
However, at the same time, both characters in the other novels needed assistance as well. Harriet called on Wimsey to help her, who ultimately solved the case—with little help from Harriet. Similarly, Kate employed the help of her nephew-to-be Jerry and her detective friend Reed, but unlike Harriet, this strong independent female character was able to piece the puzzles of the case together herself (while using the males’ help of course). So I wonder how this team (Roosevelt, Moore, and Kreizler) will turn out, especially since each person seems to be dominant and have a specific role (Commissioner, reporter, and alienist, respectively) as opposed to playing the part of a detective (Kate and Harriet). I think it will be interesting to see how this team works together and to explore the male perspective in the academic genre mystery as well.
At the crime scene, Moore sees an indescribable sight: a badly injured dead man that left people thinking “what had been done to the body.” Apparently the body was carved up very badly and body parts were removed, giving the impression of an obscene and grotesque picture. Theodore Roosevelt was already at the scene since at this time he was the NY Police Commissioner. Kreizler, who had already left, was “the eminent physician and alienist” (doctor who specializes in the treatment of mental illness). To me it’s clear that these three have emerged as a team. Together they will solve the case, which will be interesting since all three will be discovering new leads and shedding light on the case and evidence they’ve found. This team contrasts the other two novels since in those, the reader mostly followed the main character who only presented her views and progress on the case. As a result, I might be able to compare the advantages and disadvantages of having more people on a case and determine how this “fits in” with the genre.
However, at the same time, both characters in the other novels needed assistance as well. Harriet called on Wimsey to help her, who ultimately solved the case—with little help from Harriet. Similarly, Kate employed the help of her nephew-to-be Jerry and her detective friend Reed, but unlike Harriet, this strong independent female character was able to piece the puzzles of the case together herself (while using the males’ help of course). So I wonder how this team (Roosevelt, Moore, and Kreizler) will turn out, especially since each person seems to be dominant and have a specific role (Commissioner, reporter, and alienist, respectively) as opposed to playing the part of a detective (Kate and Harriet). I think it will be interesting to see how this team works together and to explore the male perspective in the academic genre mystery as well.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
So It Begins…
In contrast to both Gaudy Night and In the Last Analysis, The Alienist begins in another interesting way. It doesn’t begin with a murder, but rather the death of a beloved icon—Theodore Roosevelt. The first line states “Theodore is in the ground.” This engages the reader and encourages them to continue due to the narrator’s use of a metonymy (I hope that’s the right one), expressed by the word “ground” since it’s associated with death since people are buried in the ground. It’s also engaging because the reader is curious to know which Theodore the narrator is referring to. Having discovered that it’s Theodore Roosevelt, I am led to believe that the novel will have a political element to it, which again contrasts my previous novels since neither had a strong political presence in them. Because this one might, it proves that academic mystery novels can cover a wide range of topics.
Also in contrast with the other two novels, The Alienist is told from the first person point of view. This might be an advantage since now I’ll be able to truly know what that main character is thinking about, especially pertaining to the mystery at hand. However, at the same time, this could prove to be a disadvantage because now I am limited to the thoughts of only one character as opposed to several. I’ll have to see how this plays out in the novel.
Also, this novel is told in retrospect. Being told in the present, both Gaudy Night and In the Last Analysis followed the action and even the character didn’t know the outcome of the mystery. I wonder how this will change now since the narrator knows who’s responsible for the “ghastly murders of 1896.” Also, because this first person narrator is recalling past events, it’s possible that the author, Carr, might want me, the reader, to question the validity of certain events and discover the narrator’s bias, adding another layer of interest to the novel. The novel is set in 1919, which directly follows the First World War (1914-1918) (I wonder how this will affect events), but reverts back to New York in 1896 to tell the story of the murders. The narrator feels the need to tell the story “even though the public’s reaction…forced… [it to be kept] secret for so long” because Roosevelt is now dead and the narrator (who apparently knew Roosevelt) never felt closer to him and their friend Kreizler, than during that time. As a result, he’s decided to record the story in a book, but Kreizler thinks it will only “frighten and repel people, nothing more.” At the same time, this still leads me to the question of why the narrator has waited until the end of Roosevelt’s death to write about the murders. Sure it may scare the public but why now? Could it be perhaps because the murders would’ve tarnished Roosevelt’s career and Presidency since the murders took place in 1896 while Roosevelt served two terms as president from 1901 to 1909? (This leads me to the question of is this story in any way true?)
This presence of Roosevelt might have also introduced the academic aspect of the novel since already there have been several historical (people) allusions, Jacob Riis and Lincoln Steffens among them. Academically, the book is challenging my knowledge of American History. I can recall that in 1896, the famous Plessy v. Ferguson trial took placed, that Roosevelt was the 26th president of the US who advocated the Square Deal and introduced several reforms, and that Steffens and Riis were both muckrakers (people who exposed the corruption and other issues of society). I wonder how much more history I’ll need to know… Still, at the same time, the academic aspect may really be in the form of the character Kreizler since he seems to be the psychologist of the group. As a result of reading In the Last Analysis and about psychoanalysts, I can expect this mystery to be carefully analyzed and include inside into people’s minds and way of thinking.
Also in contrast with the other two novels, The Alienist is told from the first person point of view. This might be an advantage since now I’ll be able to truly know what that main character is thinking about, especially pertaining to the mystery at hand. However, at the same time, this could prove to be a disadvantage because now I am limited to the thoughts of only one character as opposed to several. I’ll have to see how this plays out in the novel.
Also, this novel is told in retrospect. Being told in the present, both Gaudy Night and In the Last Analysis followed the action and even the character didn’t know the outcome of the mystery. I wonder how this will change now since the narrator knows who’s responsible for the “ghastly murders of 1896.” Also, because this first person narrator is recalling past events, it’s possible that the author, Carr, might want me, the reader, to question the validity of certain events and discover the narrator’s bias, adding another layer of interest to the novel. The novel is set in 1919, which directly follows the First World War (1914-1918) (I wonder how this will affect events), but reverts back to New York in 1896 to tell the story of the murders. The narrator feels the need to tell the story “even though the public’s reaction…forced… [it to be kept] secret for so long” because Roosevelt is now dead and the narrator (who apparently knew Roosevelt) never felt closer to him and their friend Kreizler, than during that time. As a result, he’s decided to record the story in a book, but Kreizler thinks it will only “frighten and repel people, nothing more.” At the same time, this still leads me to the question of why the narrator has waited until the end of Roosevelt’s death to write about the murders. Sure it may scare the public but why now? Could it be perhaps because the murders would’ve tarnished Roosevelt’s career and Presidency since the murders took place in 1896 while Roosevelt served two terms as president from 1901 to 1909? (This leads me to the question of is this story in any way true?)
This presence of Roosevelt might have also introduced the academic aspect of the novel since already there have been several historical (people) allusions, Jacob Riis and Lincoln Steffens among them. Academically, the book is challenging my knowledge of American History. I can recall that in 1896, the famous Plessy v. Ferguson trial took placed, that Roosevelt was the 26th president of the US who advocated the Square Deal and introduced several reforms, and that Steffens and Riis were both muckrakers (people who exposed the corruption and other issues of society). I wonder how much more history I’ll need to know… Still, at the same time, the academic aspect may really be in the form of the character Kreizler since he seems to be the psychologist of the group. As a result of reading In the Last Analysis and about psychoanalysts, I can expect this mystery to be carefully analyzed and include inside into people’s minds and way of thinking.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The Alienist by Caleb Carr
This is the third book I’ve chosen to read in hopes of further creating a definition for the academic mystery genre. Based on an interview with the author, Carr, I’m led to believe it is a “disturbing” book, involving such topics as serial killers and “maternal violence—the idea of mothers who kill.” Although this is a bit creepy, at the same time, its also interesting thinking about what the book could possibly be about, pertaining to these subjects and the academic setting. Perhaps it will involve analyzing what happens in the mind of serial killers (or other killers) at a college, given the fact that the two other books were “big” on analysis.
Also from this interview, I was able to learn that Carr grew up an angry kid in Manhattan. He loved studying about military tactics (violent for a young kid, suggesting his books will most likely be so too!). Also, his father committed murder (possible motivation for his stories?) and introduced the Beat generation to his son Carr. The Beat generation refers to a “heterogeneous mix of young people, artists and intellectuals of the 1950s (and later) whose unconventional work and lifestyle reflected profound disaffection with contemporary society.” So basically, they were rebels and nonconformists of the 50s, led by writer Jack Kerouac. This information leads me to believe that Carr’s books may do just this—be rebellious and starkly different from others of the time. To read the entire interview, visit http://www.salon.com/books/int/1997/10/cov_si_04carr.html. For more about the Beat generation, visit http://www.fb10.uni-remen.de/anglistik/kerkhoff/beatgeneration/index.htm.
Also from this interview, I was able to learn that Carr grew up an angry kid in Manhattan. He loved studying about military tactics (violent for a young kid, suggesting his books will most likely be so too!). Also, his father committed murder (possible motivation for his stories?) and introduced the Beat generation to his son Carr. The Beat generation refers to a “heterogeneous mix of young people, artists and intellectuals of the 1950s (and later) whose unconventional work and lifestyle reflected profound disaffection with contemporary society.” So basically, they were rebels and nonconformists of the 50s, led by writer Jack Kerouac. This information leads me to believe that Carr’s books may do just this—be rebellious and starkly different from others of the time. To read the entire interview, visit http://www.salon.com/books/int/1997/10/cov_si_04carr.html. For more about the Beat generation, visit http://www.fb10.uni-remen.de/anglistik/kerkhoff/beatgeneration/index.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)