Sociopaths on my Reading List

So it seems as though I read a lot of books about sociopaths. I started out the year with No Country for Old Men, which focused quite a bit on Anton Chigurh, who murdered a hefty amount of people over the course of the book. Then I read Song of Solomon, which followed Milkman who wasn’t the greatest guy in terms of caring for others, but he never actually killed anyone… so I suppose that doesn’t actually classify as a “sociopath.” After Song of Solomon there was Macbeth, which I guess is not as much of a stretch because this guy, Macbeth, was insane and was ready to do anything to stay in power.

Speaking of staying in power House of Cards is super good and if you like political dramas you should check it out. Kevin Spacey is brilliant with his portrayal of Frank Underwood, and it’s freighting watching the sort of schemes he develops. There is also Robin Wright which is incredible as Claire Underwood, and plays a character with far more dimensions than Frank in my opinion.

Recently I recommended House of Cards to one of my teachers, telling him that it would definitely be up his alley. He responded and said he had watched a few of the episodes and didn’t really enjoy it because he didn’t like thinking that the people in government were so devious. That made sense to me, but I couldn’t help question why I enjoyed the show so much considering that all the characters, specifically the main one, regularly commit unethical actions for their own self-interest.

And I guess the reason why is that characters in these works of fiction are consistent in their values. Frank Underwood has a purpose. He wants to gain power, stay in power, and do the things that he wants to do without impediment. His character is willing to do anything to pursue this purpose, and since the viewers know this, they enjoy watching it. Sure we all love a film in which our main character starts as someone uncaring or strange and becomes someone of good morals, but static characters can work even better if you do it correctly. But not everyone does them correctly, and this is why they’re sometimes avoided by mainstream films and works of literature. Most recently people complained about Rogue One, the newest Star Wars, because the characters don’t experience a character arc.

But I’d argue that it isn’t necessarily bad that the characters didn’t experience a change over the course of the plot, but instead that they were not interesting characters to begin with. It isn’t a lack of character arcs that break a film. Think about Inglorious Basterds, Sicario, Whiplash, or Silence of the Lambs. These are great movies, and it’s not they don’t have character arcs, but they excel because they contain interesting characters that are slowly exposed to the viewer through dialogue and actions. These static characters are successful because they are interesting to us at the very point in which they are introduced. Compare this to a character that is only interesting because they experience change or only interesting after they experience a change and you can see why static characters can be so successful.

But that’s not all. Just an interesting character isn’t all the reader/viewer needs for an entertaining work of art. We need purpose. If we combine a purpose with a character, who happens to be completely consistent in their actions and dialogue, and you’re certainly on your way to a great film/book.

This is why I like House of Cards. When I know that Frank Underwood wants to win, and he’s willing to lie, kill, and frame others to get there, I’m entertained. When I watch a scheme developing and, I know that other characters don’t know this, I experience a sort of dramatic irony because I have some knowledge over the other characters.

So is Alex actually a static character? Well let’s see. In my opinion he’s the same at the beginning and the end of the book, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is static. He goes through changes that aren’t naturally occurring, and are more so imposed upon him, but we do see a changed character for a few chapters.

But the catch is that he slowly falls back into his character. He gradually starts speaking Nadsat again when he becomes enraged:

“‘I'll just get my platties,’ I said, at the stair-foot, "that is to say clothes, and then I'll be ittying off all on my oddy knocky. I mean, my gratitude for all, but I have my own jeezny to live,’” (147).

The author then notices the particularities of this slang and this is evidence of the fact that Alex does not experience a high degree of change.

And he still enjoys classical music:

“It was a symphony that I knew real horrorshow but had not slooshied for many a year, namely the Symphony Number Three of the Danish veck Otto Skade-lig, a very gromky and violent piece, especially in the first movement, which was what was playing now. I slooshied for two seconds in like interest and joy, but then it all came over me,” (148).

And sure it’s only to the point that the conditioned response hits him, but the novel is setting up certain particular things about Alex’s character that can be referenced in the future to demonstrate a return to his usual self. Additionally, he’s able to lie and scheme to try and work with F. Alexander, so yes, he’s a static character.