Fizko

When I was a kid, my site-translation of the word psycho was pronounced approximately "fiz-ko." I mention this because my reaction to Robert Bloch's novel was more or less approximate to this word-sound. It wasn't quite what it was supposed to be.

Now, let me preface any criticism of the book by saying that when you have seen the movie before reading the novel upon which it is based, you often ruin the experience of reading the novel. So it was here, and so it e'er shall be. Most of the "ah-ah" moments in Psycho were ruined by my placement of the cart before the horse, so it's impossible for me to give it a fair hearing. My only recourse is to analyze it from a technical standpoint.

Bloch has the gift of economic storytelling. This is really a novella, and a rather skimpy one at that. Yet it covers quite a bit of ground, and even throws in a fairish expository-backstory at the end. The character of Norman Bates is as well-developed as possible considering the necessity of withholding many vital facts about his past. Lila is also distinct as a character -- her impulsivity, her contemptuous big-city impatience with "hicks", her fierce concern for her sister. Likewise Arbogast, who epitomizes the relentless sort of Pinkerton-type detective of that era, and who reminded me vaguely of Javert from Les Miserables. And the creep factor in the early sequences is pretty high. It's an awkward thing to feel sympathy and understanding for a murderer, or even one who is presumably "only" covering up murder, but I did sympathize with Bates all the same. The shrieking, domineering mother-figure is easy to hate, and we've all known at least one poor SOB who called this sort of creature "mom."

Having said that, I did feel there was a disjointed quality to the proceedings. I get this is a "horror" novel, but I see it primarily as a thriller, and for a thriller to work, the hero(es) must be working toward the prevention of some particular, specific catastrophe. (This, I learned my first time 'round at SHU, is the principal difference between a mystery and a thriller.) Psycho stuttered a bit for me not only because seeing the movie crushed most of the suspense, but because Bloch shows his hand a bit too early in the goings for my taste. Once the Sheriff reveals to Sam that Norma Bates has been dead for 20 years, it becomes evident that Bates must be the killer and "Norma" only a figment of his twisted imagination. Likewise when Bates knocks Sam unconscious; his speech to Sam beforehand makes the final confrontation between Sam and Bates a letdown.

It's unfair to contrast the book with the film, but if we shove aside fair, I had to say that Hitchcock was more skillful with his sense of timing. Norman is clearly involved in the grisly doings at the Bates Hotel, but the fact that he is Norma Bates is the "ah-ha!" moment of the film -- indeed, the entire movie is constructed to lead us to that point, and at that time. Bloch's eagerness to show the afformentioned hand is, in a thriller, a fairly egregious sin. It's like tripping an ambush before the enemy is in the kill zone, or scaring away the deer before they are in range of your rifle. Patience is a tough skill to learn, but it's essential in a writer of this type of novel.

If I seem a bit too hard on Bloch I must repeat that seeing the movie, and fairly recently, at that (or part of it anyway, at a John Williams concert at the Hollywood Bowl) robbed the book of nearly all of its power and gave me a kind of 20/20 hindsight that I would definitely not have possessed otherwise. If Psycho fizzed for me, it's really no reflection on the author. Blame Alfred Hitchcock.