Were Mrs. Corliss or Leo Kingship culpable for the actions or fates of their children?
(I originally only focused on Leo Kingship, but I was struck by the author's decision to return to Mrs. Corliss in the end.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I certainly felt like the author wanted us to think so. He seemed especially disgusted by Mrs. Corliss' fawning over Bud, implying that she was to blame for turning him into a heartless narcissist. And we should therefore feel satisfied at the end knowing that Mrs. Corliss would have to hear about Bud's fate, her punishment for raising him so poorly.
The book was more sympathetic to Leo Kingship, I thought, maybe because he was trying to be a better father after Dorrie and Ellen died.
I sort of had the sense that Bud was simply a run-of-the-mill psychopath, someone who was just genetically short a conscience and that while his mother was not to blame for that she certainly didn't help the situation. I think it was very astute of the author to hold her up as a mirror to Bud's vanities; even though he didn't respect his mother, impressing her was a measure of success in his mind. He didn't love her really, but he needed her to be his lifelong cheerleader. I think in the end we were suppposed to pity her, for her complete lack of knowledge of the monster she had raised, for being just a mom who had lost a child.
I agree with Erin that the book was more sympathetic to Kingship. I liked him. He was a straightforward domineering tycoon who simultaneously lorded over and emotionally neglected his family, as many fathers of that era did, but he had a core of decency and learned, I think, the error of his ways.
Also, I thought of two things in relation to Bud's mom. One is a photograph that Diane Arbus took of Lee Harvey Oswald's mother after the Kennedy assassination. The mother of a monster. But she is just sitting in a chair, like Mrs. Corliss, looking like a regular 1960s mom. It's like the parent-child bond is untouchable, no matter what ghastly things the parent learns or is about to learn. I couldn't find the picture in a cursory search online. But if anyone sees it, you'll know what I mean. The other thing I thought of was the movie "Psycho." Norman Bates had a need to impress his mom (even after she was dead and even though he loathed her deeply) because she was the looking glass of his own worthiness.
I don't think Mrs. Corliss was much of a mom -- and she reminded me of Peter's mom in "The Fountainhead," where that desire to please warps the son -- but being fawned over is hardly the making of a sociopath. Erin mentioned it in an earlier comment, but I was interested in how the book ended. Bud boiling to death would be such a fitting ending -- the dramatic visual at the end of an action movie, no consequences, no messy followup. To take Marion back to the mother: "Where's Bud?" tugged at me a little and made me wonder whether Levin thought Mrs. Corliss was more important to the story than I thought.
I think Leo eventually lived up to his responsibilities, but he was still a bit of an ostrich when Gordon first tried to get his attention. I don't understand the chest-beating, "I couldn't protect them so it's all under the rug" attitude he first brought to the investigation.
How do you remember characters from "The Fountainhead"?! When was your Ayn Rand phase? Mine was when I was 14 or 15. My freshman English teacher thought she was really neat, and I didn't know any better. I'm sure she thought "rape by engraved invitation" was really bold.
Post a Comment