![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimoreneBesides the fact that the romance itself is underdeveloped and the overall speed of development I found a tad tedious, the main problem with Cousin Kate is a seriously problematic treatment of mental illness, in my view. Considering the publication date that's not entirely a surprise, of course (the state of mental healthcare in the late 60s was quite bad - we were still at Lithium, Valium, It's All In Your Head, electroshock therapy, and Girl, Interrupted in the US - this just from my own vague non-specialist's knowledge, so the input of someone with more facts is always welcome). It's a bit hard to get my thoughts completely in order to dissect it, so I'd be very interested in the opinions of other people familiar with it.
One thing that's on my mind is the exact nature of what is wrong with Torquil. We're told that he suffers from paranoid delusions and a bloodthirsty lust for violence; that he wants to kill people but kills animals and rips their heads off with his hands when he needs an outlet; that after a bout of violence he blacks it out of his memory. There's a disturbing connection drawn between paranoid schizophrenia here and, you know, serial-killer-ness. The cries for help are not out of place, or so Criminal Minds has led us to believe, but the blackouts seem odd. And not that I expect Heyer to have an idea of this since I suspect our collective knowledge of the nature of serial killers was somewhat behind in '68, but as Torquil's being repressed by a textbook sociopathic emotionally abusive mother (ruled by ambition and self-interest, incapable of emotion), I'd expect him, as a serial killer, to be killing his mother over and over, and not to be interested in strangling his valet or his cousin. Jumping one's horse over a stone wall has no connection to strangling, overbearing mothers, etc that I can see. Although perhaps his hints of violence toward Kate came when she tried to exert authority over him - perhaps he was seeing her as a representative of his mother in some way there.
There's a disturbing mixture of lucidity and not in the plot that's hard to put my finger on.
But the main points are
Where was Heyer *trying* to go with that, I wonder? It leaves a very, very bad taste in my mouth.
One thing that's on my mind is the exact nature of what is wrong with Torquil. We're told that he suffers from paranoid delusions and a bloodthirsty lust for violence; that he wants to kill people but kills animals and rips their heads off with his hands when he needs an outlet; that after a bout of violence he blacks it out of his memory. There's a disturbing connection drawn between paranoid schizophrenia here and, you know, serial-killer-ness. The cries for help are not out of place, or so Criminal Minds has led us to believe, but the blackouts seem odd. And not that I expect Heyer to have an idea of this since I suspect our collective knowledge of the nature of serial killers was somewhat behind in '68, but as Torquil's being repressed by a textbook sociopathic emotionally abusive mother (ruled by ambition and self-interest, incapable of emotion), I'd expect him, as a serial killer, to be killing his mother over and over, and not to be interested in strangling his valet or his cousin. Jumping one's horse over a stone wall has no connection to strangling, overbearing mothers, etc that I can see. Although perhaps his hints of violence toward Kate came when she tried to exert authority over him - perhaps he was seeing her as a representative of his mother in some way there.
There's a disturbing mixture of lucidity and not in the plot that's hard to put my finger on.
But the main points are
- It's really ironic to me how SUCH a big deal is made by all the sane characters at the end about how victimized poor Torquil is by his mother and how his life in an isolated cottage with private nurses would have been horrible and death would be preferable, but no one seems to genuinely regret his death. Seriously? You're going to present death as the morally righteous and, like, merciful alternative to medical incarceration, even if said incarceration is like, in a rich man's home with servants and stuff, not as a patient in an asylum? The fact that she has this occur oh-so-conveniently via suicide, thus absolving her characters of the hard decisions, indicates to me that she was at least subconsciously aware that this was not unproblematic.
- The aunt is clearly presented as a sociopath - incapable of remorse or emotion, driven entirely by ambition, an obsessive control freak with no empathy who exerts herself to manipulate everyone for her own gain and doesn't love her son at all. This is horrible, but is presented as evil as opposed to insane although she is also clearly presented as having had these qualities from childhood and thus as incapable of helping herself as her son is; we're also told explicitly that his "insanity" was inherited through her, but that it didn't present in her generation.
Where was Heyer *trying* to go with that, I wonder? It leaves a very, very bad taste in my mouth.
(no subject)
Date: 17 May 2009 06:07 pm (UTC)Was the movie actually meant to portay the psychological illnesses of the family? Or not?
If it was...then I agree from what you've described that the movie didn't explain what it should have/needed to and all that. Given, however, that it was done in '68...what was known back then? We were still coming out of the 1800s with Freud and his views and into modern psychological medical-ness. Rather difficult balance, I'd say.
(no subject)
Date: 17 May 2009 06:26 pm (UTC)Cousin Kate
Date: 17 May 2009 07:46 pm (UTC)I haven't read this book in years, as I didn't much like it the first time, but thank you for posting this analysis. It seems unlike Heyer to include something without researching it thoroughly, but it looks like she may have done just that with mental illness in this case.
Re: Cousin Kate
Date: 17 May 2009 07:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17 May 2009 09:32 pm (UTC)Because we've become so saturated with serial killer narratives in our pop culture (and because you're perceptive) this seems obvious in the here and now. But I think you're right that the state of play in '68 was vastly different. Even Psycho gets the psychology wrong, iirc.
And a lot of people still don't get it. I was part of a writing group in the mid-90s and one guy brought in a story in which a character's son was hit by a bus, so the character "turned into" a serial killer. Unclear On The Concept.
And while that guy was an amateur, I've seen crappy "serial killer origins" nearly as sloppy as that in profic/films since. Even now people screw up the psychopathology, or just use serial murder as an easy plot device. :-/
(no subject)
Date: 17 May 2009 10:22 pm (UTC)Hahaha adult turning into a serial killer! XD At least Heyer has down the concept of evolving, and starting with small animals and moving up, although she seems very much unclear on the whole motivation/delusion aspect. I don't blame her for not knowing about arson/bed-wetting: it was the 60s, after all.