Tuesday, January 31, 2012

I Am Not a Serial Killer by Dan Wells

Right from the beginning we know that the main character, John Wayne Cleaver, is perhaps not quite a normal teenage boy. He is very interested in death and seems to no longer associate humanity with corpses. His mother and aunt run a mortuary out of their home (although the aunt, Margaret, lives elsewhere) and John has been helping with the embalming since he was a very much younger boy.

His mother and aunt don't approve of his fascination with death, his irreverence of corpses as once having been living and breathing human beings, and often lecture him about his interest in serial killers.

"You're really a smart kid," said Margaret, "and I mean that. You're probably the only student that's already finished with the essay. But you can't...it's not normal, John. I was really hoping you'd grow out of this obsession with murderers."
"Not murderers," I said, "serial killers."
"That's the difference between you and the rest of the world, John. We don't see a difference." She went back inside to start work on the body cavity---sucking out all the bile and poison until the body was purified and clean.

This is sort of a running theme throughout the book with his family. It's a little more subtle from his sister, but his whole family is worried about what they see as unnatural behavior. I'm sure that they mean well, but the constant nagging has got to wear on John. His feelings about the nagging itself don't really get a huge role in this book, and I really thought that they should have. It has to be annoying and disheartening to know that every time you try to do anything, your family is there to tell you that it isn't normal and you have to stop it. But, the author gets around this by making it plain that this is just how John's life is and always has been and he is used to it now and as long as it doesn't get to the point where it actually interferes with what he wants to be doing, he can more or less roll with it pretty easily.

At this point, it's probably good to mention that John is also a sociopath. He's too young for a formal diagnosis, but his psychiatrist went ahead and diagnosed him with antisocial personality disorder. Which is just a nice way of saying that John is a sociopath.

"'Happy' is not having a son who has to follow rules to keep himself from killing people," she shot back. "'Happy' is not a psychologist telling me that my son is a sociopath. 'Happy' is---"
"He said I was a sociopath?" That was kind of cool. I'd always suspected, but it was nice to have an official diagnosis.
"Antisocial personality disorder," she said, her voice rising. "I looked it up. It's a psychosis." She turned away. "My son's a psychotic."
"APD is primarily defined as a lack of empathy," I said. I'd looked it up, too, a few months ago. Empathy is what allows people to interpret emotion, the same way ears interpret sound; without it you become emotionally deaf. "It means I don't connect emotionally with other people. I wondered if he was going to pick that one."

It's very clear that his mother doesn't quite understand what being diagnosed with this means. She seems to think that she can change him by forcing him to change his behavior (keeping him out of the mortuary and away from the dead bodies) or just telling him to act like a normal person (chase girls, make friends, be sociable) or simply telling him to stop being a sociopath.

I understand that she probably doesn't want her child to be a sociopath or in any way abnormal to the rest of society to such an extent, especially since sociopaths are only in the news for doing terrible, nasty things to other people. But, she seems to be taking leave of reality here. You can't just tell people to stop being who or what they are and expect it to work. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how hard you try to make it work that way.

Generally, telling your kids that you are ashamed of them and that they are not normal isn't a great parenting tactic.

Also, while we're at it let's lament the trope of the overbearing single mother making an appearance here in the book. It's overused when there's a male as the main character, especially young males. Abusive father, wishy-washy mother. Absent father, overbearing mother. Both parents dead. These are tropes that generally always make it in when there's a male character as the main character.

However, I think that in this case I can look past it because it seems to be serving a purpose other than being a trope or being in some way misogynistic. Instead of working like that, what I think Wells is doing is setting up the character's background to be classic for a sociopathic personality. Most of the time when we look into the backgrounds of high profile sociopaths, it's practically textbook that they've got an absent father and an overbearing mother (or a present father who is so henpecked he may as well not be there).

This doesn't mean that overbearing mothers and absent fathers cause sociopathy, but most readers are going to be familiar only with high profile serial killers and terrorists who have been said to be sociopaths and he wants this background to be familiar for them. To set it up to show that this boy is a sociopath in a way that is simple and easily (and quickly) understood. To keep it in mind, but move past it enough to let the rest of the story progress the way it will.

There are other ways to do that, but I can forgive it because I think it was an attempt at some simplicity. Then again, just because I can forgive it doesn't mean that other readers will. This is a YA book and perhaps not the time to use simplicity if it goes along with a misogynistic stereotype. Giving young girls or young boys this view of women is not a great idea.

Also, let's be clear here: I'm not calling Dan Wells a misogynist. I'm just pointing out that this view of women screwing up their sons by being overbearing whenever a strong father figure isn't around to stop that from happening is overused and misogynistic. I'm willing to bet that he didn't even stop to think of it like that, and if he had he may have changed it a bit. That's an ingrained societal problem.

Now, let's get back to the rules that were mentioned. John has made up rules for himself as he's gone along, ever since he's realized he isn't quite normal, in order to keep himself from doing something wrong or bad. He doesn't want to hurt anyone and he's taken proactive steps to make sure that he does not. That his sociopathy doesn't get too out of hand. I think that this alone is fascinating, but he also gives some examples of those rules.

He likes to watch people, but he makes certain that if he catches himself watching someone for too long that he forces himself to ignore that person for a week and not think about them. He stays away from animals, won't even accept the idea of a pet around the house or pet someone else's. If he's being bothered by someone to the point that he's getting angry or thinking of hurting them, he gives them a compliment and smiles at them to force himself to think good thoughts and to stop himself from doing anything bad.

This is fascinating to me, because I don't think I've ever heard of anyone doing something like this before. He's very intelligent, which is not abnormal in sociopathic people, and has been making rules since he was eight-years-old when he first realized he wasn't like other people. Instead of ignoring this, because it was upsetting think he wasn't normal or worrying that he would get into trouble so just hoping it would go away on it's own, he began to take proactive steps to stop it from getting worse. And, every time he notices a new or different tendency or trait that is not normal, he will make a new rule.

He sees this as taking responsibility for who and what he is, the fact that he is the type of person that could grow up to be dangerous and that he is already exhibiting a lot of the tendencies and traits that show up in the types of sociopaths that do commit heinous crimes. Like those serial killers he's so fascinated with. In fact, I think that's why he's so fascinated with serial killers and the information out about them. He wants to find out what he has in common with them in order to stop himself from becoming like them. But, also they're kind of cool to learn about anyway, and I think even non-sociopathic people would say the same. Otherwise, we wouldn't be so fascinated with them ourselves and there wouldn't be so many people interested in getting their hands on books about Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, the Green River Killer, etc.

Something else about John...is that he thinks that fate wants him to become a serial killer. Not only was he born without empathy, making him -- as he put it -- emotionally deaf, but he seems to be surrounded by personal reminders of serial killers.

"I say 'fate,'" I explained, "because this goes way beyond some simple behavioral quirks. There are some aspects of my life that I can't control, and they can only be explained by fate."
"Such as?"
"I'm named after a serial killer," I said. "John Wayne Gacy killed thirty-three people in Chicago and buried most of them int he crawl space under his house."
"Your parents didn't name you after John Wayne Gacy," said Neblin. "Believe it or not, I specifically asked your mom about it."
"You did?"
"I'm smarter than I look," he said. "But you need to remember that one coincidental link to a serial killer is not a destiny."
"My dad's name is Sam," I said. "That makes me the Son of Sam---a serial killer in New York who said his dog told him to kill."
"So you have coincidental links to two serial killers," he said. "That's a little odd, I admit, but I'm still not seeing a cosmic conspiracy against you."
"My last name is 'Cleaver,'" I said. "How many people do you know that are named after two serial killers and a murder weapon?"

I'm not sure if this is also a trait he should've been looking out for, but I find this sort of thinking to be delusional. I'm not sure if he's just hoping that some of this is out of his control, that there is someone or something working his life and the circumstances around it to make him into something he doesn't want to be. Something or someone he must fight against, to give him a goal and reason to defy his "fate" rather than just simply trying to conform to societal norms and mores. Also, I must take into account that he is just a fifteen-year-old boy. Children and teenagers are prone to delusional thoughts and illusions of grandeur just because of their age and the way that their brains are not yet finished developing. Plus, this time of his life is going to be filled with hormonal issues, as well. Hormones can effect brain chemistry and the way that you think and see the world in general. Which must be difficult seeing as he is already struggling with this other huge issue of the brain, a lack of empathy and (perhaps) conscience.

Because, let's not forget that knowing that you are doing something wrong and taking steps to stop that behavior is not necessarily the same thing as understanding WHY what you are doing is wrong and feeling bad about that.

Frankly, despite the fact that being able to talk to Dr. Neblin helps him and he recognizes that (he has no one else he can talk to about serial killers or other things he likes or dislikes), I'm surprised he even continues to speak to his doctor. I'm surprised he goes there without being prompted directly after school on the days he has to, and I'm surprised he does more than sit there and stare at the floor or the desk or out the window.

However, despite these issues (and in some instances because of them) it's a good read! It actually is very interesting and the process by which John goes about figuring out who the monster is and how to defeat him (and his social problems within his school and community thrown in for good measure) makes this a book that is very easy to get into, it's very easy to read, and I think anyone would enjoy it regardless of gender or age.

No comments:

Post a Comment