Dr. King wrote:
> Well, I've given you my definition of psychotic
fairly
> extensively and these folks fit the shoe. What's
your
> definition of psychotic? How crazy do people have
to
> be in your book? These people are about as
delusional
> as people can be without blabbering. One can
argue
> that much of Guttman's condescending diatribe
is
> blabbering. How do you think his "history of
the
> Falcon" played during his trial? Ted Bundy is
saner
> than any of these Falcon hunters!
Ted Bundy? Gosh.
Another classic misreading of a classic text, and another
shallow blast of meaningless hyperbole. There is nothing in
Hammett's text to support any of this.
> I define a psychotic as a person whose reality
has
> little in common with the reality of the people
they
> live around. Psychosis is a very interesting and
hard
> to detect mental disorder. One of the first signs
is
> irrational lying. If a person lies for no
logical
> reason, (a logical reason for lying is to
hide
> embarrassment) they are quite possibly
psychotic.
Irrational lying? Brigid spills out plenty of lies, but
they're far from irrational -- if so, they'd be obvious to
both readers and Spade from the start. Instead, her
statements are only revealed as lies as more facts become
known. Which means they were plausible on the surface; not
irrational.
A stubborn insistence, where one actually believes their own
lies might be another matter, but there's no indication
Brigid believes her own crap. Lies for her -- as for most of
the characters in the book, including Spade -- are simply a
convenient tool to get what they want; not an alternate
reality.
Were Brigid really the crazy person you claim she is she'd
stubbornly, defiantly stick to one story. But it's obvious to
anyone who's read the book that she's more than a one-lie
gal. You don't buy her story? Wait a moment -- she'll give
you another one, or tweak the old one to fit the new
circumstances.
> People who believe they are on the trail of
a
> priceless heirloom which is more important to
them
> than human life are, by definition,
psychotic.
Not just greedy? Not just obsessed, but actually psychotic?
Wow.
Obsession and delusion are not the same thing, and there is
no evidence that any of the characters in THE MALTESE FALCON
(as written by Dashiell Hammett) are delusional. Misled,
eccentric, murderous, manipulative, perfidious-- yes. Maybe
even paranoid; worried someone else will nab the Black Bird
first. But not truly disassociated from reality. The closest
to being delusional any of the characters get is Mrs. Archer,
who thinks Sam, that "stalwart" son of a bitch, actually
loves her.
Your "definition" of psychosis is shaky at best, bearing no
relationship to any recognized meaning of the word: clinical,
scientific or even in the generally accepted usage of the
world.
But by your definition, almost anyone who lies to get what
they want or stubbornly insists that something is not what it
obviously is
(like, oh, claiming that the first edition of I, THE JURY,
despite irrefutable proof, was a paperback) might be
considered psychotic. At least by your definition.
But I'd just peg them as a liar or even just wrong.
And if they persisted in representing an untruth as a fact,
irrationally refuting or ignoring all evidence to the
contrary long past its expiry date, well, I might consider
them pigheaded. Or a pompous blowhard. But still not
psychotic.
More Ted Baxter than Ted Bundy, in fact.
But that's not Brigid. She lies to get what she wants. And
will kill or seduce a man, if he gets in the way of her goal.
She doesn't lie or kill (or presumably have sex) for fun, or
because a neighbour's dog told her. Which makes her
dangerous, and a villain. and crazy about the bird. But still
not psychotic.
Kevin Burton Smith The Thrilling Detective Web Site 10 Years
of P.I. Thrills
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 25 May 2008 EDT