Random
WRITERS WHO ARE REAL OR POTENTIAL MURDERERS
ominously hot: Patricia Highsmith at 21
I recently heard someone state the offhand opinion that Patricia Highsmith was a sociopath who managed to use her “condition” to produce excellent fiction. The New York Times has a big, fascinating article today on a new biography of Highsmith (“She kills so many dogs… She hated dogs. She couldn’t bear sharing attention”), who in fairness I think was not really a sociopath but just a very troubled person. Also, as the photo above suggests, a pretty sexy one as well.
But there are some sociopaths who’ve written novels. Come to think of it, I’m surprised there aren’t more. Writing good fiction, at least in the traditional narrative sense with recognizably human characters and so forth, requires a capacity for empathy that sociopaths by definition don’t have… but it offers a god-position that a sociopath would presumably find appealing. (So maybe many sociopaths do write novels, they’re just not good enough to be published. Wouldn’t that be interesting… to learn that there’s a vast scattered library of manuscripts by sociopaths out in the world.)
Last summer at Readercon I was on a panel called “The Killers Inside Us” about the portrayal of sociopaths in fiction. We talked about real sociopaths (Bundy, etc), and sociopaths invented by writers (Ripley, etc), and finally the conversation turned to writers who were sociopaths.
I said that an interesting thing about reading the Marquis de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom is that it reads like a document/artifact of pathology. The Marquis de Sade tried to write a story, he really did… it begins with characters and prose, sentences and a story… but as you go on, all of that breaks down and gets stripped away until you end with, literally, just a list of tortures. The last section of the book is just a numbered list that goes on for pages and pages graphically describing increasingly absurd, insane tortures:
113. He embuggers, and whilst sodomizing, opens the cranium, removes the brain, and fills the cavity with molten lead.
Allegedly the final pages were a draft, but de Sade never fleshed them out (he was repeatedly interrupted, while writing the manuscript in prison, by the political turmoil of the day), and when reading them you get the sense that they are the rawest representation of what was going on in his head.
A subject I didn’t bring up on the Readercon panel, but I wish I or someone else had, was the case of Krystian Bala, a Polish novelist who murdered a man and then wrote a book in which the first-person narrator kills someone in almost exactly the same way. David Grann wrote a terrific article in the New Yorker about this in February 2008. It’s not online but if you want the full text, email me, nick.antosca [at] g mail.
Bala seems to have been a real sociopath–and his novel sounds like the kind of thing you’d imagine a sociopath writing: A first-person tale of being a Nietzschean superman, a manifesto about why it’s okay for him to take the lives of those around him.
The interesting thing is, say Bala had been exactly the same person and written exactly the same book, but never killed anyone–even though he wanted to and had none of the moral restraints most of us do. In that case I think it could be argued that that version of Bala was heroic. Same with Highsmith, if she really was a sociopath (again, I think she probably wasn’t). Same with Nabokov, if he really did have erotic inclinations toward barely-adolescent girls (and I actually think he did). Who is genuinely heroic–the pedophile who never molests a child even though he has the overwhelming & unrelenting urge to do so, or the average person who feels no such urge?
damn. i need reread some of her now. Deep Water i remember striking me hard. but that she was actually kind of wild makes it even better. that picture doesn’t hurt either.
i have to go reread Sodom now. xmas partytime.
damn. i need reread some of her now. Deep Water i remember striking me hard. but that she was actually kind of wild makes it even better. that picture doesn’t hurt either.
i have to go reread Sodom now. xmas partytime.
I don’t know…it’s been awhile since i’ve read 120 Days but i remember feeling like it had a project, a philosophical project, and that he intended from the outset that everything is supposed to break down like the sun burning itself up indifferent to the humanity that it nurtures, pure destruction, pure wreck…Sade was imprisoned because he was a bit moderate for the Robespierre crowd, not because he was a sociopath…he was against the excesses of the Reign of Terror..I don’t think 120 Days of Sodom was just his raw record of his own fantasies, i think it’s much more complicated in all good ways, but again it’s been awhile..
I don’t know…it’s been awhile since i’ve read 120 Days but i remember feeling like it had a project, a philosophical project, and that he intended from the outset that everything is supposed to break down like the sun burning itself up indifferent to the humanity that it nurtures, pure destruction, pure wreck…Sade was imprisoned because he was a bit moderate for the Robespierre crowd, not because he was a sociopath…he was against the excesses of the Reign of Terror..I don’t think 120 Days of Sodom was just his raw record of his own fantasies, i think it’s much more complicated in all good ways, but again it’s been awhile..
or of his own psychoses, or anything. it is raw as a text but that doesn’t mean its composition was raw, or that he was trying to do something and couldn’t
or of his own psychoses, or anything. it is raw as a text but that doesn’t mean its composition was raw, or that he was trying to do something and couldn’t
John Henry Abbott was a sociopath and if you read In the Belly of the Beast it’s pretty apparent within the first few pages.
James Ellroy is a sociopath who has managed to channel his energies towards the productive.
And you don’t write a book like American Psycho if you’re not a sociopath on some level. Unless you’re writing while high on Angel Dust, and I don’t think Ellis was.
John Henry Abbott was a sociopath and if you read In the Belly of the Beast it’s pretty apparent within the first few pages.
James Ellroy is a sociopath who has managed to channel his energies towards the productive.
And you don’t write a book like American Psycho if you’re not a sociopath on some level. Unless you’re writing while high on Angel Dust, and I don’t think Ellis was.
I stopped reading that Highsmith article after 2 paragraphs because I’m so deadly uninterested in how life translates to the page or vice-versa. Sure, we all take from our lives to put stuff in our work, but why is that so interesting? Seriously, I’m curious. I love Highsmith’s work, and I just don’t see myself getting more out of it by knowing about her life. I do sometimes like literary bio just out of my own kind of prurient interest in gossip, but the minute the biographer prioritizes the life lived over the life of the imagination as the basis for the work, I’m out.
I stopped reading that Highsmith article after 2 paragraphs because I’m so deadly uninterested in how life translates to the page or vice-versa. Sure, we all take from our lives to put stuff in our work, but why is that so interesting? Seriously, I’m curious. I love Highsmith’s work, and I just don’t see myself getting more out of it by knowing about her life. I do sometimes like literary bio just out of my own kind of prurient interest in gossip, but the minute the biographer prioritizes the life lived over the life of the imagination as the basis for the work, I’m out.
what about the Sade curiosity? that seems conflicting with what you’re saying here.
i like author lives as outside context, but it rarely influences the way i see a book. there are exceptions maybe. i can’t think of any at the minute. my brain hurts this year.
what about the Sade curiosity? that seems conflicting with what you’re saying here.
i like author lives as outside context, but it rarely influences the way i see a book. there are exceptions maybe. i can’t think of any at the minute. my brain hurts this year.
[…] 11, 2009 · Leave a Comment Marvelous piece on HTML Giant on Patricia Highsmith, De Sade and other writers who were or might have been […]
I must read the Abbott… have wanted to read that for a long time. What an odd chapter in the saga(s) of Mailer’s life. Don’t know a lot about Abbott himself.
Not sure I agree with you on the Ellroy, although i’ve certainly heard that said before. Why do you think that? Ellroy certainly has pathological tendencies (the alliteration and obsessive attention to detail are symptomatic of that, seems like) but a sociopath? Provocateur, yes, but…
What I like about American Psycho is how immersive it is. There’s no flinch. He never says “Okay, I’m Bret Easton Ellis, separate from the narrator, and I don’t think this sort of thing is okay.” But I really think that’s the art, not the pathology. I don’t think Ellis is a sociopath.
Also, re: the post above, I’m saying only sociopathic authors could be killers… of course not… I think it would be absurd to believe that *anybody* is incapable of murder. Every person alive is capable under the right circumstances of the worst acts imaginable. I’m just wondering about those who are strongly predisposed…
I must read the Abbott… have wanted to read that for a long time. What an odd chapter in the saga(s) of Mailer’s life. Don’t know a lot about Abbott himself.
Not sure I agree with you on the Ellroy, although i’ve certainly heard that said before. Why do you think that? Ellroy certainly has pathological tendencies (the alliteration and obsessive attention to detail are symptomatic of that, seems like) but a sociopath? Provocateur, yes, but…
What I like about American Psycho is how immersive it is. There’s no flinch. He never says “Okay, I’m Bret Easton Ellis, separate from the narrator, and I don’t think this sort of thing is okay.” But I really think that’s the art, not the pathology. I don’t think Ellis is a sociopath.
Also, re: the post above, I’m saying only sociopathic authors could be killers… of course not… I think it would be absurd to believe that *anybody* is incapable of murder. Every person alive is capable under the right circumstances of the worst acts imaginable. I’m just wondering about those who are strongly predisposed…
I separate art from artist only in the sense that I’m okay with liking a work on its own merits even if the artist was a vile piece of shit.
(Or maybe that’s not true as a blanket statement, since even if The Turner Diaries had featured wondering prose–which it didn’t–I probably wouldn’t have been able to appreciate little aesthetic things about it. And even if The Christmas Sweater was a masterpiece–I haven’t read it–I wouldn’t be able to get over my Glenn Beck contempt.)
But I think it’s silly to “separate the art from the artist” in the sense that we shouldn’t think about author’s lives and how their lives affected their work. Why is that so interesting? I don’t know why that’s so interesting. But I find it interesting that Burroughs shot his own wife in the head playing William Tell. I find it interesting that Kundera was maybe actually an informer for the secret police. I find it interesting that Highsmith had this tortured existence that echoed some of Tom Ripley’s fears and desires.
I separate art from artist only in the sense that I’m okay with liking a work on its own merits even if the artist was a vile piece of shit.
(Or maybe that’s not true as a blanket statement, since even if The Turner Diaries had featured wondering prose–which it didn’t–I probably wouldn’t have been able to appreciate little aesthetic things about it. And even if The Christmas Sweater was a masterpiece–I haven’t read it–I wouldn’t be able to get over my Glenn Beck contempt.)
But I think it’s silly to “separate the art from the artist” in the sense that we shouldn’t think about author’s lives and how their lives affected their work. Why is that so interesting? I don’t know why that’s so interesting. But I find it interesting that Burroughs shot his own wife in the head playing William Tell. I find it interesting that Kundera was maybe actually an informer for the secret police. I find it interesting that Highsmith had this tortured existence that echoed some of Tom Ripley’s fears and desires.
maybe sade is one of those prurient exceptions, though really i don’t know much about his life, and i’m not likely to learn that much more since i’d rather just read his books. but since Nick is talking about whether the book is a record of his own psychosis, marshaling evidence from his life that might prove otherwise seems relevant, no?
i’m no purist, so i’m not going to claim that i’m never interested in the outside context. the nyt on highsmith just particularly turned me off in that respect, with quotes like “our most Freudian writer”
maybe sade is one of those prurient exceptions, though really i don’t know much about his life, and i’m not likely to learn that much more since i’d rather just read his books. but since Nick is talking about whether the book is a record of his own psychosis, marshaling evidence from his life that might prove otherwise seems relevant, no?
i’m no purist, so i’m not going to claim that i’m never interested in the outside context. the nyt on highsmith just particularly turned me off in that respect, with quotes like “our most Freudian writer”
I don’t think we “shouldn’t” think about it. I just don’t want to usually. Somehow, and this is surely my limitation, it ruins something for me a little bit to think about how Highsmith might have been acting out petty grudges via her work, which is so generous and unpetty in its explorations. And maybe the rest of the article presents a more nuanced case that wouldn’t have bothered me. But I was afraid to read on for fear of what I learned interfering with my reading of the work. Even finding out that Sade was politically moderate kind of messed with me; I didn’t know what to do with that info in relation to his work, and I kind of wished I hadn’t known
I don’t think we “shouldn’t” think about it. I just don’t want to usually. Somehow, and this is surely my limitation, it ruins something for me a little bit to think about how Highsmith might have been acting out petty grudges via her work, which is so generous and unpetty in its explorations. And maybe the rest of the article presents a more nuanced case that wouldn’t have bothered me. But I was afraid to read on for fear of what I learned interfering with my reading of the work. Even finding out that Sade was politically moderate kind of messed with me; I didn’t know what to do with that info in relation to his work, and I kind of wished I hadn’t known
Couldn’t his writing be both a record of his psychosis and a vessel for complex and fairly progressive ideas? I’m certainly not denying that he was a philosopher and a thinker. But you can’t make much of a serious argument that many of the fetishes/predilections/pathologies explored in his writing weren’t his own. He and his manservant were repeatedly imprisoned for sexually terrorizing prostitutes and maids.
Couldn’t his writing be both a record of his psychosis and a vessel for complex and fairly progressive ideas? I’m certainly not denying that he was a philosopher and a thinker. But you can’t make much of a serious argument that many of the fetishes/predilections/pathologies explored in his writing weren’t his own. He and his manservant were repeatedly imprisoned for sexually terrorizing prostitutes and maids.
I would never try to argue that Sade’s fetishes made no appearance in his work. But the bloodshed at end of 120 Days is far from the sex crimes that Sade committed, and given that he was outspokenly opposed to the excesses of the Reign of Terror, I don’t think the end of the book is his predilection. Also I never thought of him as a psychopath.
But the main thing, really, that I was reacting to was your statement that he tried to write a book but then it breaks down. I think he set out for it to break down. What you wrote seemed to suggest that you thought his psychosis got in the way of his writing, and I disagree. But what you say here makes a lot more sense to me.
I would never try to argue that Sade’s fetishes made no appearance in his work. But the bloodshed at end of 120 Days is far from the sex crimes that Sade committed, and given that he was outspokenly opposed to the excesses of the Reign of Terror, I don’t think the end of the book is his predilection. Also I never thought of him as a psychopath.
But the main thing, really, that I was reacting to was your statement that he tried to write a book but then it breaks down. I think he set out for it to break down. What you wrote seemed to suggest that you thought his psychosis got in the way of his writing, and I disagree. But what you say here makes a lot more sense to me.
Nick, did you read the New Yorker piece on psycopathy? Some argue that the terms are interchangeable. Those who feel there is a difference—or who have decided to create two distinct categories out of “sociopath” and “psychopath” say that the psychopath is a more ordered personality, calmer, cooler, less quick to anger.
Also, it’s easier for a psychopath to live out a life where their condition is never detected.
Nick, did you read the New Yorker piece on psycopathy? Some argue that the terms are interchangeable. Those who feel there is a difference—or who have decided to create two distinct categories out of “sociopath” and “psychopath” say that the psychopath is a more ordered personality, calmer, cooler, less quick to anger.
Also, it’s easier for a psychopath to live out a life where their condition is never detected.
[…] reader of my earlier Patricia Highsmith-related murder post forwarded a picture of Highsmith topless. NSFW, obvs. I was not aware that that existed. […]
Sade was also locked up before the revolution for sodomy and mistreating prostitutes and servants.
Sade was also locked up before the revolution for sodomy and mistreating prostitutes and servants.
If our personal writing is, in any way, an indication of our mental state and/or its aberrations, then we are all fucked. But perhaps writing can be “wishful thinking”? Ellis isn’t unbalanced, Sade wasn’t, DC isn’t, Bataille wasn’t. Personally, I get a rush off of writing certain material. But I also see it as a “jumping off” point that makes my point easier to get to. Ripping the “surface” apart in order to get closer to what’s underneath, so to speak. Otherwise, the material is merely provocative and, in my opinion, becomes “trash” reading–reading that, though enjoyable, really means nothing.
What is going on in the “plot” of the writing is always necessary to the particular literary mechanisms running underneath. I believe this is the case with The 120 Days and the rest of Sade’s writing. There are a number of interesting essays, etc. on this book and I have never heard one of them justify Sade’s subject matter by claiming he was “insane”. That’s too dismissive and gets us nowhere.
But I guess I can be very protective of that book. It is my favorite book of all time. Now, does my sheer, undiluted enjoyment of that book make me unbalanced or insane? God, I hope not.
If our personal writing is, in any way, an indication of our mental state and/or its aberrations, then we are all fucked. But perhaps writing can be “wishful thinking”? Ellis isn’t unbalanced, Sade wasn’t, DC isn’t, Bataille wasn’t. Personally, I get a rush off of writing certain material. But I also see it as a “jumping off” point that makes my point easier to get to. Ripping the “surface” apart in order to get closer to what’s underneath, so to speak. Otherwise, the material is merely provocative and, in my opinion, becomes “trash” reading–reading that, though enjoyable, really means nothing.
What is going on in the “plot” of the writing is always necessary to the particular literary mechanisms running underneath. I believe this is the case with The 120 Days and the rest of Sade’s writing. There are a number of interesting essays, etc. on this book and I have never heard one of them justify Sade’s subject matter by claiming he was “insane”. That’s too dismissive and gets us nowhere.
But I guess I can be very protective of that book. It is my favorite book of all time. Now, does my sheer, undiluted enjoyment of that book make me unbalanced or insane? God, I hope not.
Great thoughts, Jesse, very much in agreement. I think writers as manifest socipaths tend to be rare actually – or else, not very good writers – because sociopathy negates the need for writing, which is, by definition, sociopathic in itself.
Great thoughts, Jesse, very much in agreement. I think writers as manifest socipaths tend to be rare actually – or else, not very good writers – because sociopathy negates the need for writing, which is, by definition, sociopathic in itself.
I agree with Amy here. Most of Sade’s fiction was written after “120 Days” and it’s all quite lucid.
I also think “fetishes/predilections” shouldn’t be conflated with “pathologies.”
I agree with Amy here. Most of Sade’s fiction was written after “120 Days” and it’s all quite lucid.
I also think “fetishes/predilections” shouldn’t be conflated with “pathologies.”
Exactly!
Exactly!
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks, David!
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks, David!
Oh, I missed the context here, sorry.
Oh, I missed the context here, sorry.
i was going to touch on the same thing. there is a difference between sociopath and antisocial personality disorder but the two are very similar.
the true sociopath is able to manipulate people through various tacts. feigned emotions being one.
i was going to touch on the same thing. there is a difference between sociopath and antisocial personality disorder but the two are very similar.
the true sociopath is able to manipulate people through various tacts. feigned emotions being one.
Thanks for this–I did read it a while ago but didn’t really flash back on it while tapping out this post, although I wish I had. Anybody who reads the above post and says I’m being a bit lazy conflating sociopaths with psychopaths is, probably, absolutely right.
Thanks for this–I did read it a while ago but didn’t really flash back on it while tapping out this post, although I wish I had. Anybody who reads the above post and says I’m being a bit lazy conflating sociopaths with psychopaths is, probably, absolutely right.
Sociopaths, not to be confused with those who are merely socially inept or who fall into the “very troubled” category that Nick puts forth, are alive and well in the present publishing scene. One renowned author, who shall remain unnamed, has devoted a considerable amount of his attentions into pitting numerous people against each other, taking great delight in the results, much like the disgusting protagonist of George R.R. Martin’s “Sandkings.” But he has been so successful in deflecting any of the blame because he has been smart enough to go out of his way to seek out figures who are not only expected to behave in a somewhat eccentric manner, but who are known to take the high road and not attest to this author’s bad behavior. What makes this author so sad and troublesome is the way that he has ingratiated himself into nearly every literary scene, both in person and online, thus inuring himself from honest criticism of his increasingly dwindling work. And while he has failed to be true or work out the ugly emotions he contains, and while most people have not had to deal with this author’s considerable in-person inadequacies, he has persuaded and flattered enough souls to suggest that he is the genuine article.
Because there are such scummy people like this who exist (not just in the publishing world), it is vitally important for all of us to embrace and encourage those who are different, idiosyncratic, or misunderstood. (And, no, one’s personal writing is not necessarily reflective of his inner psyche.) Nick’s wise suggestion that we reconsider Highsmith’s personal qualities is certainly a start (as is this thread). But be careful out there, folks. That’s all I’m saying.
Sociopaths, not to be confused with those who are merely socially inept or who fall into the “very troubled” category that Nick puts forth, are alive and well in the present publishing scene. One renowned author, who shall remain unnamed, has devoted a considerable amount of his attentions into pitting numerous people against each other, taking great delight in the results, much like the disgusting protagonist of George R.R. Martin’s “Sandkings.” But he has been so successful in deflecting any of the blame because he has been smart enough to go out of his way to seek out figures who are not only expected to behave in a somewhat eccentric manner, but who are known to take the high road and not attest to this author’s bad behavior. What makes this author so sad and troublesome is the way that he has ingratiated himself into nearly every literary scene, both in person and online, thus inuring himself from honest criticism of his increasingly dwindling work. And while he has failed to be true or work out the ugly emotions he contains, and while most people have not had to deal with this author’s considerable in-person inadequacies, he has persuaded and flattered enough souls to suggest that he is the genuine article.
Because there are such scummy people like this who exist (not just in the publishing world), it is vitally important for all of us to embrace and encourage those who are different, idiosyncratic, or misunderstood. (And, no, one’s personal writing is not necessarily reflective of his inner psyche.) Nick’s wise suggestion that we reconsider Highsmith’s personal qualities is certainly a start (as is this thread). But be careful out there, folks. That’s all I’m saying.
well, you got me. i’d like to know who you are referring to. i’m that easy.
well, you got me. i’d like to know who you are referring to. i’m that easy.
I have never read any of Anne Perry’s murder mysteries, but I did see Heavenly Creatures and she did help kill her friend’s mother with a brick in a stocking. Now she is very prolific and Mormon and has some recipes on her website.
I have never read any of Anne Perry’s murder mysteries, but I did see Heavenly Creatures and she did help kill her friend’s mother with a brick in a stocking. Now she is very prolific and Mormon and has some recipes on her website.
I believe Ed Champion is talking about Tao Lin.
I believe Ed Champion is talking about Tao Lin.